On Meet The Press, Hillary Again Pushes Back Hard On Martin Luther King Flap

Comments (174)

Hal wrote on January 13, 2008 10:22 AM:

Isn't Hillary making a mistake by helping to keep this story alive? In fact, isn't she digging a deeper hole for herself, by implicitly comparing herself to LBJ and Obama to JFK?

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 13, 2008 10:25 AM:

I have no idea what to believe now. I like Obama, Clinton, and Martin Luther King. This is very confusing for the elderly.

Greg wrote on January 13, 2008 10:27 AM:

well, in fairness, russert brought mlk up...

paul wrote on January 13, 2008 10:35 AM:

I like the Clintons less and less as this campaign goes forward. Obama did not compare himself to JFK. She said he was "all words" and that he shouldn't "raise false hopes". He then joked about what if JFK had said the moon was too far.

It's pretty clear what her quote was intended to do - and it was inartful - but what she clearly intended to imply was that MLK was a dreamer, but it took a president take his dreams adn make them reality. It's clear that's what she's been saying about Obama. Yeah, she blew and she knows it - and now she's taking the position that the best defense is a good offense.

Good luck to her, but to pretend that she wouldn't play any card she has - including the race card - to get what she wants would be naive in the extreme.

Tom wrote on January 13, 2008 10:37 AM:

Greg,
This is a ridiculous defense of Hillary's comments. The full quote makes it worse if anything. It doesn't change the meaning of what she said.

Meanwhile, the Clintons keep on giving half of Obama's quotes when the rest of it clearly changes the meaning of what he said completely.

PulSamsara wrote on January 13, 2008 10:38 AM:

Clinton is a machine candidate. I could never vote for someone who acts like this.

poetry wrote on January 13, 2008 10:41 AM:

The New York Times is starting to have a bad reputation; it is allowing reporters and columnists to edit Hillary Clinton's comments and then bash her based on that edited version.

The FACT is that although Martin Luther King was extremely active in the Civil Rights cause during the President Kennedy years, Kennedy was never able to move the stalled civil rights legislation through Congress. After Kennedy was assassinated and Lyndon Johnson became president, LBJ used his knowledge of how to get things done in the Congress (where he had served as a powerful leader in both the House and senate) along with the emotion built up by the murder of Kennedy to get the historic Civil Rights bill passed and the voting rights bill passed the following year.

At the time LBJ signed the long-desired Civil Rights bill, he remarked that he had lost the South to the Democratic party for at least the next 25 years -- and that prediction turned out to be true.

Not only that, but LBJ's skill and courage in pushing and then signing that legislation led to a lot of hatred toward him that smolders still. Today, most younger people know only that LBJ is reviled for his Vietnam war failures, but few know how skillfully he worked to get the Civil Rights and voting rights legislation passed.

Of course, it was the courage and bravery and leadership skill of Dr. King and his colleagues plus the activism of this nation's black population that created the national awareness that something had to be done to protect blacks and make it possible for them to enjoy the promise of America's Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. but Dr. King was not in Congress and had no way to write or pass legislation and had to persuade those who were in legislative office to do the right thing. For years, those in Congress did not get the legislation passed. LBJ did get the legislation moving successfully through Congress, using his celebrated strong-arm methods when necessary and his persuasive skills when possible. Maybe another president might have been able to get the job done, but the fact is that none of them did -- until LBJ did.

That takes NOTHING away from Dr. King's historic leadership and courage; it merely states that Congress had to pass the legislation and the president had to sign it to make Dr. King's courageous efforts result in laws.

When President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves in the rebellious states, he was NOT the only one who had worked to end slavery, yet I don't see anyone talking about that. Many white and black abolitionists died in the cause of freeing the slaves yet no one says it is disrespectful to THEIR contribution to recognize what Lincoln did.

So, why are extremists, today, saying it is disrespectful toward Dr. King to say that LBJ got the Civil Rights and voting rights bills moving successfully through Congress (where they had been stalled for years) and then signed that legislation turning Dr. King's dream into reality?

It takes nothing from Dr. King anymore than saying Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation takes credit away from those earlier martyrs.

As far as I know The NYTimes has YET to publish Hillary Clinton's full statement -- in the print edition -- and persists in allowing reporters to bash her based on the "skillfully"-edited version that suits their agenda better.

Shame on all the reporters and pundits who do the same editing and bashing.

======================================

Here's the Obama quote Fox News's Major Garrett read to Senator Clinton ( it is a quote from a speech Obama gave earlier in the day).

"False Hopes. Dr King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial looking out over the magnificent crowd, the reflecting pool, the Washington Monument, sorry guys, false hopes, the dream will die, it can't be done, false hope, we don't need leaders who tell us what we can't do, we need leaders to tell us what we can do and inspire us."

Major Garrett then asked Mrs. Clinton if she would respond and she said:

"I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

John wrote on January 13, 2008 10:42 AM:

She is keeping this alive because it hurts the Obama campaign with white voters...Obama has worked hard to stay away from victim politics and she is now making it seem like he is falling back and saying because I am black you are not allowed to say "fill in the blank"... The Clinton campaign realizes that it might help him with black voters in SC but it will hurt him with white voters in the bigger states on super tuesday..

Drew M. wrote on January 13, 2008 10:43 AM:

"'I was responding to...Senator Obama himself...and his comparison of himself to Kennedy and Dr. King... "

For clarification, Obama never said he was JFK, MLK, or even LBJ. He was making his case against false hopes on the stump by bringing up leaders who had provided hope in the past.

One can argue he implicitly compared himself to those leaders, but it's shaky, and misses the point. In all fairness, I think Clinton's remarks were clumsy, but non-controversial.

This whole thing is silly.

David wrote on January 13, 2008 10:48 AM:

Gonna have to second John on this one. It's getting pretty obvious that Clinton and her surrogates have decided to axe Obama's viability by painting him with the Sharpton /Jackson brush.

Sad and shortsighted. Do they really think African Americans will have forgotten this by fall?

stivo wrote on January 13, 2008 10:49 AM:

As long as we're discussing history, and while poetry is correct that LBJ's role in civil rights legislation as president is worthy of note and of praise, his earlier key role as Senate majority leader in stymieing such legislation also should not be forgotten. Johnson might not have needed to be so heroic in 1965 if he'd been more heroic in the fifties.

Seems to me that Hillary is playing a risky game here.

RaymondA wrote on January 13, 2008 10:54 AM:

The real story here is that Hillary and Bill keep lying and lying about Obama's record. Hillary says Obama's campaign was based on one speech -- in October 2002. She asks Tim Russert: "What did Obama do after that?" Well, here is what Obama did after that, and his campaign should say so -- forcefully, because the "Obama wasn't really a war opponent" meme is complete nonsense.

First. On March 4, 2003, an Illinois newspaper, the Belleville News Democrat, reported this:

“Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question.... ‘What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,’ said Obama, a state senator from Chicago.”

Second. On March 17, 2003, the Chicago Sun Times reported this:

“Thousands of demonstrators packed Daley Center Plaza for a two- hour rally Sunday [two days before Bush issued his ultimatum against Saddam], then marched through downtown in Chicago's largest protest to date against an Iraq war. Crowd estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000.... State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, ‘It's not too late’ to stop the war.”

This is relevant for two reasons.
First, it shows that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are being deceptive when they try to plant the idea that Obama equivocated about the war or was not against the war at all relevant times prior to its being launched by George W. Bush.

Second, it draws attention to Hillary Clinton’s own contradictions on the war. From the beginning of her Presidential campaign, Senator Clinton has said that “If I had been president in 2003, I would never have started this war.” See Feb. 11 Concord Monitor, “Clinton Reintroduces Herself as Presidential Candidate.”

But no one has asked her – at any of the fifteen debates – whether why, if she harbored objections to Bush’s decision to pull the trigger on the war on March 18, 2003, she did not – in the critical March 2003 period – use her very prominent platform to speak out against the invasion and claim that it would be a misuse of the authority she voted to grant Bush.

If we credit Hillary’s assertion that she had objections to Bush’s decision to invade, then once we recognize that she did not voice those objections publicly, she is worse than someone who just happened to have had bad judgment, she is someone who is claiming the mantle of the real leader and doer in this race and yet who was abjectly craven at the single most important moment of her Senate career.

So the real “fairytale” is the one Bill Clinton is trying to propagate by attempting to strip from Obama his rightful advantage as the one who had both judgment and courage on the Iraq war. I hope Brian Williams confronts Hillary Clinton with her silence in that crucial March period at the next debate. I hope TPM scrutinizes Hillary's statements on Meet the Press, as it has dissected other comments.

Greg wrote on January 13, 2008 10:56 AM:

I want to try to make this case one more time.

People keep saying that there's no need to publish the full quote because its meaning is the same as the truncated one.

But here's the point: Not everyone agrees with this. There's ARGUMENT on this point.

Because of this fact -- that there's ARGUMENT about this -- the reporters should publish the full quote.

There is no harm in publishing the full quote. There's no reason not to do it.

Dave wrote on January 13, 2008 11:02 AM:

Greg - I agree with you.

Also, while we're on the topic of the "whole truth" I think you might want to fix the previous item on the Huffington Post report about the Obama campaign memo, in which you claim the memo had been sent to reporters, whereas the Huffington Post item clearly says it had not been sent to the press.

Liam wrote on January 13, 2008 11:04 AM:

Where is the full quote of when Hillary attempted to slime Senator Obama by telling us about what he said in Kindergarten?. There is a pattern here folk. Hillary with that attempt to diminish Senator Obama, and Bill with his dismissive "fairy tales" rant. The Clintons are not running on what Hillary stands for, they are running on a tactic of diminishing what Senator Obama stands for.

I watched Hillary on NBC this morning. Something about her way of answering Tim's questions I found very disturbing. Not so much her answers, as the fact that she rarely looked at him.

Guests almost always look directly at the host, when they are responding to what has been asked. Hillary just gave a swift shifty eyed glance his way, but mostly averted her gaze, while she was responding. What ever the reason she does it, her shifty eyed performance came across as someone who could not look Tim straight in the eyes.

Keith wrote on January 13, 2008 11:07 AM:

Greg:

I noticed you are running down the NY Times quote. Thanks for doing that because I don't think the full quote really clarifies things. I would appreciate it if you would also run down Senator Clinton's claims that (1) Obama was comparing himself to MLK and JFK and (2) the Obama camp is distorting this.

Here's what Obama was saying in response to her dismissing of his statements as false hope:

How have we made progress in this country? Look, did John F. Kennedy look at the moon and say, 'Ah, it's too far?' We can't do that. We need a reality check.

"Dr. King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. 'You know, this dream thing, it's a false hope. We can't expect equality.'

"False hopes. Let me tell you something about hope. I do talk about hope quite a bit. Out of necessity. There is no oddsmaker who would have said that I would be standing here when I was born in 1961."

One of you please point out to me where he's comparing himself to MLK and JFK, cause I'm not seeing it.

As for the second point, I'd appreciate one of the Hillary supporters provide evidence that Obama's campaign is distoring her words.

On an unrelated point, Hillary just really distorted Obama's position on the war. I mean REALLY distorted his views. Wait, and she just accused Axelrod of saying that she had something to do with Bhutto's death. Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

eorse wrote on January 13, 2008 11:10 AM:

HRC will win. Resistance is Futile. Obama has no chance.

That's said:

- I am watching Chris Matthews on Fox about his show after MTP.
- They say Edwards and Obama were ganging up on HRC.

But, wait: Go back to that debate.

- HRC tried to USE Edwards to get to Obama. She failed.
- Edwards then went change/status quo.

HRC is clever. She is the best. Clintons are the most powerful couple on this Planet. All low-income/low-education white women and men will vote for Clintons.

It is over for Obama. Over.

Greg wrote on January 13, 2008 11:18 AM:

Dave -- thanks for the correction on the HuffPo memo link. I've corrected.

Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 11:21 AM:

I am a loyal TPM reader. It is even my homepage. I follow closely all of the muck coming out of the Bush administration, and I believed that TPM had a high ethical standard that the MSM did not. My news therefore, came from TPM first.

However TPM helping in the obvious swiftboating of Sen. Obama has sickened and disgusted me. There is no truth here. No impartial news reporting. I tried to give TPM the benefit of the doubt and posted many comments, as many others have, to add to the debate. All to no avail as columns like these keep showing up.

I watched hillary live when she gave her MLK statement. If it had been a republican, TPM would be all over it. There was no mincing of words in this statement - it was obvious. The backpedaling should be exposed, not coddled by TPM.

While I will still come back and try to inject some reason into the debate. I will no longer be a loyal TPM reader. Such a shame too. Your readership has exploded with your excellent journalism in the muckracker series. It will soon be apparent that your choice of giving credence to the rovian politics of the clinton campaign, will backfire on you.

Such a shame

frankly0 wrote on January 13, 2008 11:24 AM:

Well, I agree with Greg that it would be pretty critical in communicating the tone of what Hillary said to present the entire quote.

Look, what's obviously fair to say is that whether Hillary said something offensive or quite completely acceptable and reasonable depends entirely on the details in how she said it. It's impossible to dispute that MLK could not by himself get legislation passed to fulfill his dream, or that he required a partner in the political process to bring it to fruition. That is an important point, and one which relates to the difference between tapping into and fostering people's hopes, and the nitty gritty of delivering on those hopes.

There's no question such a point can be made in a sensitive and fair way. But what's also obvious is that it's easy to do it in a way that lends itself to misinterpretation, because so much is delicate in racial matters. In such cases, every detail of the context of the quote is relevant to assessing the connotation that was communicated.

All of which makes the Times' obviously conscious decision to make Hillary's quote as insensitive as possible, by actually misquoting it, completely inexcusable, and, in fact, wrong to the point of incompetence. (I don't think that they necessarily have it in for Hillary, at least not on individual reporter and editor basis. I see it as just incompetence; they don't have the sensitivity to what the consequences of how they are distorting things that one would expect of journalists at that level.)

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 13, 2008 11:25 AM:

I watched Hillary on NBC this morning. Something about her way of answering Tim's questions I found very disturbing.

Let me guess: she was "shrill"?

Every time I see Obama being interviewed on MTP or whatever he tilts his head. to the right.

As a middle-income/overly-educated woman I find that very disturbing.

Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 11:30 AM:

congratulations on Senator clinton on her great performance on MTP.

Jigar wrote on January 13, 2008 11:33 AM:

Poetry, thanks for breaking down the history of each person's role. You make a solid case for why Hillary's words were not inaccurate. I still think that she botched it up because you have to read the full quote a couple times before it is clear that she says LBJ, not JFK, was the one to get the civil rights work done. I don't know, to be honest, why she even brought up MLK b/c then it gets all messy and easy to slice several ways. She should have made her point just by saying JFK and now she's reaping some unfortunate repercussions. Whichever way you spin the original quote, it still implies that MLK wasn't able to get anything done without a president. That point - no matter how fact-based it is - will continue to be difficult for many to swallow and so I think she has caused some serious damage within the black community. But the more this gets blown up and makes it look like Obama's engaging in racial warfare, the worse his chances may be with whites. So it may actually work out in her favor after all!

Liam wrote on January 13, 2008 11:34 AM:

"Let me guess: she was "shrill"?

If you are "overly educated" as you claim, then why are you not capable of reading what I wrote, instead of having to resort to your "let me guess" distortion of what I described. I said not one word about her being "shrill". You are the one who interjected that false spin, on what I said.

I hope that you did not waste too much money seeking that over education status, since it apparently did not endow you with basic reading comprehension skills.

Isupporttheho wrote on January 13, 2008 11:36 AM:

I am done, the R racist branded on her chest by Senator Obama and some Blacks in this party so be it you win. For me there are many other issues and I wont vote for people using hate none. Snenator Obama is now dead to me even in any future race.

Bill wrote on January 13, 2008 11:36 AM:

Greg, despite your efforts I don't believe you're on the shortlist for a Clinton cabinet position. They do sincerely appreciate your efforts on their behalf, however, and this is actually a fact.

Liam wrote on January 13, 2008 11:38 AM:

The Clintons are old hands at fomenting racial divisions to achieve their aims.

Bill Clinton played the Sistah Solhah card in 1992 to appeal to the Crypo KKK types.

They are at it again. Leopards and the Clintons do not change their spots.

Michael A wrote on January 13, 2008 11:41 AM:

I say people should just listen to their lying ears to hear what she said. I heard her and know what she said. It doesn't "jive" with the spin. Sorry clinton. You can't "shuck and jive" the media, didn't you know that?

Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 11:42 AM:

Bill wrote on January 13, 2008 11:36 AM:
Greg, despite your efforts I don't believe you're on the shortlist for a Clinton cabinet position. They do sincerely appreciate your efforts on their behalf, however, and this is actually a fact.

: I understand Obama supporters are shallow and naive. I never thought they would be so stupid as to think Greg Sargent is a supporter of Hillary. Did you moron recall how prominently he featured the line "the tear has nothing to do with it" sarcastically the whole night last tuesday? You guys are stupid, so stupid!!! How can we trust you to help us choose the best President for this great country of ours!

Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 11:42 AM:

Lincoln is immortalized in history as the president who "freed the slaves".

He is remembered for this because, against all opposition, he knew it was the right thing to do. Fighting against the odds and doing what is right is the thing that makes history.

Let me ask this - Is LBJ revered as the president who brought us Civil Rights? Is he honored and respected as Lincoln was?

NO! WHY YOU ASK!

Because LBJ did not fight for civil rights - the people did. When hundreds of thousands of people flooded Washington their voices were heard. The top governemtn cannot ignore the will of the people if enough of them speak out. He had to sign Civil Rights into law. The people had reached critical mass behind it.

LBJ does not have a holiday dedicated to him. MLK does. LBJ did not fight against all odds for this legislation, MLK did with hundreds of thousands of voices behind him.

There is no way Clinton can elevate LBJ to some exhalted position. To do so would distort history. But she is sure going to try, preying on people who are uninformed about history.

And the Clintonistas are saying Obama is a snake oil salesman by telling people he is selling "false hope"?

- people always project faults in others which they actually harbor themselves.

Kavi wrote on January 13, 2008 11:42 AM:

I was just watching this and couldn't believe my ears when Hillary said that "I don't think either of us wants to inject race or gender in this campaign." WHAT? Obviously Obama is doing a good job of avoiding overtly using race as a political tool. But HILLARY? She is doing everything she can to inject her gender into the campaign and use it as a political tool. The lies and misdirection from the Clinton campaign are staggering.

John M wrote on January 13, 2008 11:44 AM:

I'm a fan of Time Russert, but his Hillary interview was the worst interview of his career. He looked like a child afraid to speak back to his Mom and allowed to distort and filibuster. SHAME SHAME SHAME! TIM!

John Y wrote on January 13, 2008 11:46 AM:

Anyone who has followed Obama's campaign knows that "the race card" is the last thing he wants being discussed. He knows it is poison to his chances.

Obviously this is all Clinton machinations. And they'll probably work. What a shame.

Tom wrote on January 13, 2008 11:46 AM:

Greg,
reporters truncate quotes all the time. As long as it doesn't change the meaning, there's no problem with it. In this case, the only argument seems to come from Hillary supporters desperate to beat back this charge. That's why you didn't even try to make the case that it made a difference. Because it clearly doesn't.

Morgan wrote on January 13, 2008 11:47 AM:

I find Clinton's recent lectures on the reality of the Civil Rights movement frustrating. I sincerely doubt that without pressure from MLK and other activists that Johnson, out of the sheer goodness of his heart, would have passed the Civil Rights Act. It was the activists of the Civil Rights movement, not the lawmakers who finally got their act together who deserve the credit. Yes, she was misquoted in a variety of sources, but the implication was still there. And the frustrating part is, she won't move on. She just keeps making the same argument. It's as if when she makes these comments she doesn't seem to realize how truly insulting they are. Instead of hearing the criticism, and realizing perhaps that African-Americans don't want to be lectured on the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr, she just keeps pressing the issue because she's convinced she's right.

Its things like this, combined with the nasty, blatantly false attacks on Obama's record that make me question if I could vote for her if she's the nominee. I want to like Clinton, but if she continues to utilize the campaign tactics that made the Republicans so loathsome in the past, I'm going to have a really hard time doing so.

Michael A wrote on January 13, 2008 11:48 AM:

John M, I haven't watched it and probably won't. I gave up on russert long ago. He always allows the political elites to not answer questions and just repeat their talking points. He never does any follow-up. It's basically like watching a press conference and is really pathetic. He does the same thing regardless of party.

Kefa wrote on January 13, 2008 11:49 AM:

Excellent MTP showing Madem Prez.

Kenyatta wrote on January 13, 2008 11:50 AM:

I've seen enough preachers..give me results.

I've heard the "Uniter" line before..look where that got us. Read Frederick Douglas...nothing without a fight..those trying to avoid it will get nothing.

db wrote on January 13, 2008 11:51 AM:

About this issue of the truncated quote - I’ve read the transcript and watched the video. The last sentence TPM keeps insisting upon added back to her quote(in contrast to the original Politico story and the NYT), “That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished" actually makes it much worse for Sen. Clinton, and it contradicts the TPM defense of her position. It clearly puts the focus of the quote on dreams vs. reality (MLK vs. LBJ), not LJB vs. JFK.

If what it takes is a president to make dreams come true, wouldn’t you want a president that actually speaks to your dreams instead of dissing them as “false hopes.”

Even if you give her the benefit of the doubt on meaning, it’s an embarrassing misunderstanding of the history of the era, the role of the civil rights movement and how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 got passed. No parsing of her words can justify letting her off the hook for that monumental blunder.

There’s a great comment over on Ben’s Blog worth reading.

Imagine this comment: "I would point to the fact that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony's dream began to be realized when President Wilson pushed passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, when he was able to get through Congress something others were hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished." Well, thank goodness there was a white MAN around to give women a vote. Just like it was a white man that gave poor blacks their civil rights.

That is, in fact, the crux of the difference between the Obama and the Clinton campaigns. The Clinton camp (and the whole DLC crowd, really)holding to the position that change happens from the top down, while the Obama campaign believes change comes from the people. It’s the difference between a life-long politician and someone with experience in community organizing. The latter is actually interested in change, the former not so much…

Here’s a question I wish Russert would’ve asked this morning: If it weren’t for the racial division in our country during that period in our history, does Sen. Clinton believe that if given the chance MLK would have been a worse president than LBJ? If he hadn’t been assassinated, if the country was willing to accept a black man as president, that he wouldn’t have been a better president than LBJ?

Here's another one: Why does Sen. Clinton believe MLK needed that "partner" in the White House to get things done?

If it was merely “inartful” phrasing, why would Sen. Clinton keep returning to the point? The fact that she stated on Meet the Press that MLK needed a "partner" in the White House, amplifies the problem with the quote in the first place. She just doesn’t get it. And it’s offensive to those of us who care about Civil Rights. While I was willing to support her in the general election if she was victorious in the primary before, the handling of this incident has convinced me that should she be the Democratic nominee in November she will not get my vote. Period.

I think it’s also important to push back against this notion that it’s the Obama campaign “deliberately distorting this” or keeping this story alive. There’s no evidence of that whatsoever. When the Obama camp has commented on this story when asked, they have raised the same issue with the quote that thousands of others had already expressed. It may be a significant disagreement with the Clinton’s, but there’s no deliberate distortion at all.

On a very different note, if Sen. Clinton wants to keep playing the MLK / LBJ game, perhaps she should extend that position to the war. MLK was campaigning to get us out of the war in Vietnam, LBJ was getting us in deeper and deeper. We all know how the contemporaneous part of that analogy goes.

JO wrote on January 13, 2008 11:53 AM:

For all of Greg's ranting, fact is that there is nothing in the "full" quote that changes, even a little, the meaning and thrust of the sentence quoted by the NYT. Nor does Greg say that there is. Rather, by repeating over, and over, and over, his mantra about the NYT and the "full quote," Greg tries to imply that the Times is deliberately distorting the truth by printing a partial quote...even though he never explicitly says so. This is a rhetorical technique that may belong in politics, but not in "journalism."

Second: HRC's full quote implies (without explicitly saying so) that she is LBJ to Obama's MLK, the doer vs the dreamer. Except, of course, that in her "35 years" experience she hasn't accomplished anything of note that anyone can name without in-depth research. She isn't the Senate majority leader; she hasn't shown an ability to twist arms; she has never taken mega-risks a la LBJ on the Civil Rights Act of '64. Shall we now disparage TPM for failure to report HRC's "full record"?

PlumWdhse wrote on January 13, 2008 11:54 AM:

Wow. It is amazing - Some suggests that this all Clinton game plan to get White vote in the South. HA. The southern white conservative democrats have for years voted one way in Democratic Primaries and voted Republican any way in the general election, (ask Janet Reno, Mike Synar and few dozen others. Then ask David Boren of Okla). I predict the White Democrats of the South will vote heavily for Barak Obama and then vote Republican in November 2008 AGAINST Barak Obama the nominee. They get best of the both world.

So far Sister Souljah this, Bill Clinton had done exactly the correct thing. Pundits are now praising Barak Obama for doing the same thing - Talking about emmission and environment in Detroit etc.

Obama and his gang is doing this solely to get the black vote during the primaries. Its sad but not unexpected. I have got his number.

Publicus wrote on January 13, 2008 12:02 PM:

What we saw this morning is why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play. But Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn’t make the statement. I haven’t remarked on it and she I think offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous.

I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Senator Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat out wrong. She suggested that I didn’t clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did. I stood up against the war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn’t read the intelligence reports or give diplomacy a chance. She belittled the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate despite the fact that she stood on the sidelines during that negotiations on that bill.

I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected but I really don’t think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party and I don’t think it is good for our country and I think that the American people will reject it in this election.

What I want to do is spend talking about how we are going to make sure that people who are losing their jobs get work. How are we going to make sure that our young people are going to afford college? How are we going to make sure that the sub-prime lending crisis does not lead to an all out recession? How are we going to create the kind of foreign policy that allows us to bring our troops home and makes us safer and goes after a genuine terrorist threat? Those are the issues that we are going to spend time talking about in this campaign and if Senator Clinton wants to be distracted by the sorts of political point scoring that was evident today then that is going to be her prerogative.

frankly0 wrote on January 13, 2008 12:03 PM:

Bill Clinton played the Sistah Solhah card in 1992 to appeal to the Crypo KKK types.

It's absurd to characterize what Bill Clinton did with Sistah Souljah in that way.

Let's remember the original quote that made Sistah Souljah so controversial: "If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" Now Jesse Jackson had allowed Sistah Souljah into his Rainbow coalition.

What did Bill Clinton do? Criticize both Sistah Souljah for her quote and Jesse Jackson for his embrace of her in the Rainbow Coalition.

So was Clinton really appealing to here? I should think that they would be pretty ordinary white voters who think that the kind of vile racial sentiments represented by Sistah Souljah should not be tolerated in our political process. I think that represents a LOT of white voters -- and I'm sure a good number of African American voters as well.

For Bill Clinton, this was a big political win, precisely because he was tapping into people's sentiments about what they considered to be unjust and divisive remarks by an African-American figure about racial matters.

Which brings us to the current, highly visible pushback that Hillary is delivering against the criticism she has received at the hands of the Obama campaign regarding her MLK remarks.

For Hillary, insofar as she can convince voters that she is being treated unfairly by the Obama campaign, and that they are trying to exploit her remarks by appealing to African-Americans using divisive techniques, she will tend to win them to her side.

And it's hard to see how that could possibly be a wrong thing for her to do. It's the Obama campaign that began this process, clearly trying to stir up racial resentments in African-Americans, and doing so with absolutely no fair basis at all. It's obvious in the extreme that the Obama campaign was eager to seize on anything they could find to introduce this dirty sort of racial politics, because the SC primary loomed large.

What the Obama campaign didn't seem to realize is that there's a counter-attack for this kind of vile politics. And you can pretty much count on the Clintons to know how to execute it.

Liam wrote on January 13, 2008 12:04 PM:

The Clintons played the race and gender cards in both Iowa and New Hampshire because their was no significant African American populations in either state. Now that they can be hurt in upcoming states, by the reaction of of African American voters to their playin g of the race card in mostly white Iowa and New Hampshire, of course the Clintons are going to claim that they were just misunderstood, and that actually Hillary and Bill have always being greater freedom fighters than even Dr. King or Senator Obama.

It is called Triangulation, and it means that you tell each specific target audience what ever you think they want to hear. The Clintons and Mitt Romney are cut from the same cloth.

Michael's Mom wrote on January 13, 2008 12:06 PM:

Greg-

Can you explain to me why you're so exercised against the NYT and MTP using the truncated quotation of Hillary's, but you're not exercised about them and her repeating the FALSE assertion that Obama compared himself to JFK and MLK? I find the fact that you argue against one but not the other specious and tendentious.

For the record, Obama was taking off on Hillary's statement about offering false hope to Americans; his point being, did JFK offer false hope by suggesting we could get to the moon or MLK offer false hope by saying we could overcome segregation?

PlumWdhse-

I'd love to respond but incoherence confuses me.

Gerald L. Campbell wrote on January 13, 2008 12:12 PM:

Has Hillary had any more “experience” than Lady Bird Johnson, or Pat Nixon, or Rosalynn Carter, or Nancy Reagan? If so, just what is the nature of that experience? What is it that sets her apart from these other women? I realize she was elected to the US Senate, but she is talking about 35 years of experience!

Experience is the lynchpin of her campaign. Apart from a clear delineation of concrete accomplishment, her campaign narrative collapses.

Michael's Mom wrote on January 13, 2008 12:12 PM:

Greg-

Ancillarily, why is it that you've made no comment about the fact that Bill Clinton claimed Hillary was tougher than Nelson Mandela and Yitzhak Rabin?

Mo MoDo wrote on January 13, 2008 12:13 PM:

Russert also quoted Maureen Dowd of the New York Times about being a victim. Russert's version of the quote omitted the phrase "after Monica,". How did the MTP editors decide that Monica wasn't relevant to a discussion of Hillary benefiting from being a victim?

http://dowdreport.blogspot.com/2008/01/hillary-meets-lazio-effect.html

Joe Bowman wrote on January 13, 2008 12:15 PM:

I'll say again. Show me some Obama substance. Tell me, as you do, BLACK people don't LIE. Example--- I would have voted for S.O.S Powell for President until I watched his and Bush's LIES to the UN!!!!!! Watch C. Rice in same job. Obama must show his RECORD. I heard the RANT of Jessie Jackson Jr.[RACIAL SOB]about the Clintons. I DO NOT want to drink a fuckin beer with any President!
I want them to run OUR Country, not rob it like POLs in IL. have done for a 100 years. I want an intelligent person, any race, in charge of the WORLD. Joe B.
SHOW ME THE RECORDS

Mo MoDo wrote on January 13, 2008 12:16 PM:

Excuse me if this double posts, but Russert quoted Maureen Dowd about being a victim, only the aired version of the quote omitted the phrase "after Monica,". I wonder how Monica is not relevant to Hillary advancing her political career by being portrayed as a victim.

LIAM GO AWAY wrote on January 13, 2008 12:20 PM:

At it again?
How about the terms Civil Rights Movement; King's movement; HRC seems to avoid that word movement, Liam!
How about the lawsuit in Los Vegas to disrupt the ability of mostly Spanish Culinary workers ability to participate in the Nevada caucus. Liam!
Oh! HRC had nothing to do with it! Supporters? Oh! Friends are good but she has nothing to do with this! Are these like turdblossoms? Liam!

A blast from your past, that color blind thing and the race card, Liam!
Is it the race card if a picture of Obama’s mother appears in a political ad on health care? Go away, Liam!

Have a happy MLK day, Liam!

RaymondA wrote on January 13, 2008 12:22 PM:

Hillary flat out lied today on MTP when she claimed that Obama was the one who compared himself to King and Kennedy. He never did that. She said in the debate "words are nice, but they are not actions." Obama used the examples of Kennedy and King only to give examples of words mattering, not to suggest that he was comparable to them.

David wrote on January 13, 2008 12:28 PM:

I just realized something this morning. I can't take one hour of Hillary Clinton. I am a New Yorker and I really really want to like her, but I just can't make it past 30 minutes of her talking without my hair standing on end.

You know something has gone terribly wrong when changing the channel to Kerry coincides with a massive sense of relief.

So if I can't take an hour of Clinton, I certainly can't take four years of Clinton, and I'd feel pretty dirty if I were put into a position of having to campaign for four years of Clinton.

It's different with Edwards, and I noticed that it's also different with Obama. Hell, I think John Kerry is a better candidate, for all his flaws. At his worst, he'd make me shake my head at his clumsiness. Hillary makes me grate my teeth.

Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 12:33 PM:

LIAR LIAR LIAR

Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 12:34 PM:

Jigar wrote:
"Whichever way you spin the original quote, it still implies that MLK wasn't able to get anything done without a president. That point - no matter how fact-based it is - will continue to be difficult for many to swallow and so I think she has caused some serious damage within the black community. But the more this gets blown up and makes it look like Obama's engaging in racial warfare, the worse his chances may be with whites. So it may actually work out in her favor after all!"

This was the Clinton strategy. Obama did not want race to be a factor at all. He was not going to go anywhere near it. But he also knows that Kerry was swiftboated by not coming out against the spin. Listening to the lead up to Iowa on Air America, there were so many African American's who liked him but were still stuck in "America wont vote for a black president" Then Iowa happened. For the first time, Americans really thought that racial inequality could be put behind them. The younger generation certainly thinks so. African Americans were impressed. That was why it was such a defining moment. Americans of all stripes had great pride by the Iowa win. It showed that we could put race aside. This was the backbone of all of the MSM attention. The MSM media really thought they were witnessing an historic moment. This is the core of the Obama campaign - not red vs blue, black vs white, dems vs repubs - united. That is what we all hoped it could be. This is not a naive stance, Americans have always wanted our country live up to its credo. Life, liberty, freedom and justice FOR ALL. Now I ask you, is the declaration of independence and the constitution, naive?

Of course all of this talk of hope scared the crappola out of the Clinton campaign. They had to inject some cynical stances in there. Hope is naive. The bad stuff is easier to believe.

The Clintons had to create doubt in not only African Americans (who were starting to have hope), but also in Americans who almost believed in the 21st century we were moving beyond race.

This is more than just tiffs between candidates. When hill choked up and said "I just don't want us to fall backwards" what did she mean? By hitting Obama with the LBJ line she has attempted to destroy the budding American spirit that has been suppressed for so long under the darkness of the GOP.

Does Hill believe in the spirit of the American people? Or will she just do anything to win. It is heartbreaking to watch the Clinton's tear apart everything about the American Spirit and call it naive.

kan wrote on January 13, 2008 12:35 PM:

If you follow Madame Clinton's line of reasoning, we get to credit the British government, not Ghandi, for Indian independence too.

Hmmmm.

Coonsey wrote on January 13, 2008 12:39 PM:

I think this is Hillary and Bill's way of getting the non-black people a little worried about Obama being just another Jesse Jackson (They view him as - all about HIS race and not about his country).

If Obama wants this to stop - somebody needs to start talking to men about having THIS woman in charge. Not because she is a WOMAN, but because of which WOMAN she is and who she is married too. Play the GOP card....because if Obama's team doesn't, the GOP will...you can bet on that.

Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

4civilrights wrote on January 13, 2008 12:40 PM:

If Hillary wants to keep talking about the Civil Rights era, why doesn't someone ask her about what she was doing while Dr. King was fighting for the Civil Rights Act.

In her autobiography and elsewhere, Sen. Clinton has described growing up Republican and being a “Goldwater Girl” in 1964 — in other words, a supporter of Republican presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater, who vehemently opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Sure, she was young. We all make mistakes when we're young. The true test of leadership is to show how you've learned from those mistakes. With comments like these coming from Hillary, I'm afraid she hasn't learned anything from her days as a Goldwater Girl when it comes to Civil Rights.

onceler wrote on January 13, 2008 12:45 PM:

the thing Hillary Clinton is wrong about in the first place here is to say that "Obama compared himself to JFK and MLK", which I never never heard him do or read about someone else hearing him do. He does speak of them and their movements, and try to tie the feeling of unity engendered then to what he is trying to do now, yes, but that's not the same as personally comparing yourself. she's the one who brought in an anology by which she equated her opponent who she has described as "naive and irresponsible" with MLK/JFK and herself with LBJ. nobody forced her to say that stuff, she just said it without really thinking. and people don't really like it and would prefer not to see her and her husband trashing Barack Obama with misleading info and straw-men arguments.

colonpowwow wrote on January 13, 2008 12:50 PM:

Can I call a spade a spade here?

First of all, I have yet to have anyone explain the supposed Clinton “strategy” of releasing her racist spokespeople at selected times, thus alienating black voters – the most reliable single bloc of Democratic voters and longtime Clinton lovers and supporters. Can someone explain how this possibly makes any sort of sense? Is she trying to garner the huge Democratic racist vote? This is ridiculous on its face, especially going into South Carolina.

Second, none of us so-called Clinton-supporting “racists” like me, who grew up in a mixed race housing project in the late 50s in the inner city and who actually marched with Martin Luther King once, and who supported then, and supports now, Civil Rights and issues of racial injustice in every way, are fooled for one second as to whose cynical and divisive “strategy” this is, if there is, indeed, one.

The Obama campaign is trying to rally blacks against the racist Clintons and Hillary’s racist-coddling supporters. This is offensive and it’s going to backfire. It should be offensive to you, but since it's just politics as usual (you know, race card for sexist card), I'm sure you're okay with Obama exposing himself as just another backroom pol from a noted backroom pol state.

This cynical, divisive, twisted Rovian tactic reached its laughable zenith when the race card was played by Obama supporters regarding a comment made by Donna Brazile. HELLO?!?

BTW, “calling a spade a spade” does not have a racial origin or meaning. It is merely an unfortunate choice of words that I used that can now be seized on (by cynical ignoramuses panning the depths for votes), to paint me as racist. It’s kind of like Cuomo using “shuck and jive.”

Do you have any idea how funny it is to those of us who have worked and played with black people their whole lives and who count many black members of their own family (I’ve got five brothers and five sisters and a huge multi-racial family) – to see people pretending to develop a severe case of the vapors over such trivial comments and distortions. I respect the power of language and certainly respect people’s sensibilities, but LOL over this one.

BTW, here’s where the phrase "calling a spade a spade" comes from (per Nicolas Udall, in his compilation Apophthegmes (Prompt Sayings) – and first gathered by Erasmus – translated in 1542 : “Phillippus answered that the Macedonians wer feloes of no fine witte in their termes but altogether grosse, clubbyshe, and rusticall, as they whiched had not the witte to calle a spade by any other name but a spade.” – Plutarch’s Apophthegmata, 178 BC.

Liam wrote on January 13, 2008 12:53 PM:

I am not going away no matter how many times some racist yahoo tells me to. I have as much right to my political speech as some yahoo racist who wants to deny my right to express my self on here.

The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves, but given their history of Bimbo eruptions, money for pardons, shady futures windfalls etc, if they were ashamed of their selves now, it would be the first time for them. They are a well matched pair who will do and say anything for to achieve and maintain power.

I find it ironic that Hillary has not mentioned that she is married, well in name only, to "the first Black President". Why is she going back to praise President Johnson, when she has that going for her.

Hillary, have you not notice that you share your bed with the First Black President. Well, perhaps not your bed, but a legion of Bimbo's beds instead.

Jennifer Morehouse wrote on January 13, 2008 12:54 PM:

First race baiting in SC, then voter suppression in NV, and now lying on MTP, do they have no shame?

Count me in as an ex-Hillary supporter who would never vote for her in any circumstances now. She and her campaign (and her husband) are a complete disgrace and insult to us all.

Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 12:56 PM:

HRC is not my candidate. I wanted Biden. I now support Edwards.

That said, it appears obvious that Obama supporters are simply playing the race card.
That civil rights legislation under LBJ furthered Dr King's dream is indisputable.
She defended herself lucidly I believe.

Joe Bowman wrote on January 13, 2008 1:01 PM:

How many of you grand folks have lived in South Carolina? Having worked two Projects[largest employer in both areas]the whole State reminded me of a time long ago in race relations. Blacks and Hispanics are today second or third class citizens.After having a few drinks with my office staff, received a phone call at my Country Club home telling me how things were done in S.C. I asked who was calling and where could I meet them immediately? I Cursed Loudly, they hung up, never bothering me again. By the way my secretary was a young white woman and my cost Engineer was a young Black
gradute OF DUKE UN. Its not a black state of mind. Peace

Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 1:10 PM:

I want the clintonistas to explain to me how Obama is playing the race card. It seems to me he is responding, like kerry should have done, to the swiftboating the clintons keep injecting.

Is he supposed to ignore it? How well did that work out for Kerry.

They called hope "naive".

Obama showed examples in our history why the American spirit is not naive.
- American independence
- going to the moon
- MLK "I have a dream"

Notice how the Clinton campaign latched on to just the last example and said "It took a president to get it done"

If Obama responds, he is playing the race card? How could Hillary purposefully distort examples of the American spirit, downplay an American hero, and suggest that Obama is elevating himself?

The Clintons have twisted this into a racial topic, which it was never meant to be, and is forcing Obama to respond. Then turn around and say it is "Obama playing the race card"

We expect this crap from the GOP not one of "our own" (though I am beginning to doubt that).

colonpowwow wrote on January 13, 2008 1:11 PM:

Liam wrote on January 13, 2008 12:53 PM:

"I am not going away no matter how many times some racist yahoo tells me to. I have as much right to my political speech as some yahoo racist who wants to deny my right to express my self on here."

Right on, Liam! It's a free country - thanks in large part to MLK, LBJ, who have always been supported in this by the Clintons and many of us longtime, progressive Democrats who support them.

You're also free to support vile, tasteless, discredited rightwing talking points and tactics hook, line, and sinker - which I see, as an espouser of politics-as-usual, you've chosen to do.

Bob wrote on January 13, 2008 1:15 PM:

I think Senator Clinton ate Russert's lunch on the half of the interview I was able to watch (the second half). I don't know how Liam can tell how much eye contact she had with the Bloviator, given all the tight closeups in that part of the interview. But if she did avert her eyes, perhaps it was to avoid being hooked into one of Russert's typical false controversies, in which he doggedly (at least if you are a Democrat) attempts to put words into your mouth and then argues against the words he put there. Senator Clinton did nail him on that trick at least once late in the interview. Regarding the "fairy tale" quote of former President Clinton, there may be a way to justify what I regard as the misleading editing of it by Russert. Russert was purporting to give just enough of the quote to show why HRC's critics reacted as they did. But this is a weak rationale - anyone who saw the fuller version can see that even if WJC intended to do just what Russert and the critics suggest (and it certainly is possible he did so intend), the words he ACTUALLY SAID were different. The actual words spoken should count for more than they did in Russert's strawman setup.

colonpowwow wrote on January 13, 2008 1:23 PM:

Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 1:10 PM:

"I want the clintonistas to explain to me how Obama is playing the race card. It seems to me he is responding, like kerry should have done, to the swiftboating the clintons keep injecting."

Okay, Mary. He (through his surrogates - he's above all that sort of thing, don't you know?) is playing the race card by pretending that such horrible things as Clinton "dissing" MLK (she didn't) and taking out of context an ill-thought-out Cuomo (not a Clinton employee) saying "shuck and jive>"

Oh, mercy! Shades of David Duke, Don Imus, and George Allen! I think I'm developing a severe case of the vapors.

A race card played to rally black support in a cynical manner that Johnny Cochran would envy.

Of course, all's fair in politics as usual.

Palooza wrote on January 13, 2008 1:34 PM:

First off I am an Edwards supporter, so have no real horse in this Obama-Clinton controversy (and in fact would lean Obama for reasons that have nothing to do with this controversy).

That said, sorry Obamaistas you are wrong on this one. Clinton's statement is completely innocuous, and her point well taken. Nowhere did she degenerate MLK, she simply stated a fact about LBJ's involvement and that fact IS a something that she believes distinguishes herself from Obama (aka. her experience to get things do v. his lofty rhetoric -- and I am in no way conceding that she actually has the experience to get things done).

The Obama camp and his supporters immediately claimed her statement was a slur to MLK. The press latched on to this framing. That is why we are still talking about it today. If Obama had just let it go, it would have just been another little point of contention in a year long primary process. For the Obamaistas to claim that Clinton is somehow using this to appeal to whites is utterly ridiculous. One of the largest blocs of her primary support has been black voters -- she would love it to go away (if people like Russert weren't into the gotcha politics thing). If its not going to go away, she needs to defend and explain herself (that is only fair).

Conclusion from a neutral observer: Obamaistas are wrong on this one, Clintonistas are right. No race card is being played by Clinton with this comment , and if anything the race card is being played by Obama's supporters.

JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin wrote on January 13, 2008 1:35 PM:

This is just another page in the Clintons' attempt to alienate the base of the Democratic party, something they seem intent on doing no matter what happens. I have never seen in modern history a set of politicians (Bill and Hillary are one person to me) who despise their base and their party so much. The GOP is not crazy about their base, but they don't diss them in the public arena, they don't run against them, and they do everything they can not to alinenate them.

V. Nagarajan wrote on January 13, 2008 1:36 PM:

OK, I don't get Hillary's logic on many things:
To wit, arguing that Obama cannot be a President who inspires and acts. What is the basis for this. I have to conclude that this indeed was a smear on Dr MLK and now she's trying to get out of it.

The other one about how Obama tried to backtrack in 2004 on the war on Iraq. She is not saying it in so many words, but it is clear she is implying that his judgement is just as bad as hers! Is that what she wants to say?

cgwillis wrote on January 13, 2008 1:41 PM:

LBJ did not lean down and help MLK. MLK spoke up and forced LBJ to listen. MLK was brave enough to create the possibility of change, LBJ only acted after that possibility was realized. Just imagine what impact MLK would have had then, had he had the bully pulpit of the presidency.

poetry wrote on January 13, 2008 1:43 PM:

Does it disrespect Frederick Douglass to say that the great Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves?

Actually, Douglass and many others working to end slavery were fairly angry that it took Lincoln so long to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln had written it earlier but had waited until he felt the time was right -- and that the mood of the country would be more accepting to his executive order -- and did not issue the Emancipation Proclamation until after the battle at Antietam (which was on September 17, 1862). Even then Lincoln, although he issued the Proclamation on September 22, 1862, did not make it effective until January 1, 1863 -- long past the time avid abolitionists felt it should have been issued. He further angered some abolitionists by not freeing all the slaves but just the slaves held in states that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. Lincoln did not free the slaves in the "border" states, which he was trying desperately to keep in the Union (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern state already under Union control.

The Civil War had started in April 1861, so January 1, 1863 was well into the war.

Lincoln understood that timing was very important in politics. LBJ understood the same point and used the the changed mood of the country following the assassination of President Kennedy to put pressure on the southern Democratic senators to recognize that this was the time to pass the Civil Rights legislation that they had stalled for so many years.

Kennedy's proposed Civil Rights Act had been stalled in the House by Howard W. Smith, a Democrat from Virginia, and in the senate by Senator James O. Eastland, from Mississippi.

As Kennedy's vice president, LBJ had pushed the Kennedy administration to introduce civil rights legislation, telling Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."

It took great political skill to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965.

But that does NOT diminish Dr. King's great work any more than it diminishes Frederick Douglass 's great work to say Lincoln freed the slaves with his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation.

Desider wrote on January 13, 2008 1:47 PM:

Reality check, folks - Jesse Jackson could run rings around Obama in terms of delivering a speech and delving into the psyche of the American political landscape. He'd occasionally run off the rails here and there, but in terms of insightfulness, passion and delivery, there really is no comparison.

Desider wrote on January 13, 2008 1:52 PM:

Stivo,

It doesnt' matter whether LBJ obstructed in the 1950's or not (though I don't think anyone was proposing this kind of legislation in the 1950's - the gains were from Thurgood Marshall on the judicial end). If LBJ hadn't shepherded civil rights legislation through, it wouldn't have happened for a long time. Perhaps people don't realize it, but similar legislation was available in the 1880's, and then the conservatives got the Supreme Court and they shut out civil rights legislation for the next 70 years, basically gutting the 13th-15th amendments in the process.

ShutupNvote wrote on January 13, 2008 1:54 PM:

If this is the Dems Partys burning issue this election to elect a Black President fine, so be it. I happen to believe that is extremely important as a main criteria and I also believe the same if slightly more actually the importance of an inclusive women being elected. Now there is every things else, gas, recession, Iraq, 401k, health care, hate baiting, debt, children, education in this country our children in our communities

So I am done with the hate baiting you won, and I will still vote for Senator Clinton and I will still contrast the difference and not be silent on Senator Obamas lack of attendance for votes, questionable ties in Chicago politics and his real-estate dealings and the inconsistency in his explanations and the federal indictments involved, his voting record on tough issue of Present vs yeah or nay,

If in your mind that makes me racist I could give a rats arse frankly ...

Liam wrote on January 13, 2008 1:55 PM:

Reality Check: Senator Obama won in Iowa, and finished a close second in New Hampshire. Jessy Jackson has never even come close to winning in any state, therefore Obama has already proved that he is far more effective than the perpetual gas bag that you are touting.

He is also the Elected US Senator from a large State. Jessy Jackson is the elected what?.

You sure have a very warped sense of reality.

fillphil wrote on January 13, 2008 1:58 PM:

I've been sitting back reading these comments and it's clear to me who is for Obama and who is for Hillary. Each side tends to read these things the way they want. What's so piss poor about all of this is that we have arrived at a monumental moment in American Politics with the first black/woman candidate for Office and they are both Democrats. It seems that Dems are taking the Media bait and cutting each other up over what should be a very proud slate of candidates that the Dems offer the Public this year. I would caution, knowing the Repubs as we do, that our behaviour so far is pumping up the Repub base. As much as we know about their position on women they will really rally on racism. That's who they are. CAUTION!

Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 2:03 PM:

Liam wrote on January 13, 2008 1:55 PM:
Reality Check: Senator Obama won in Iowa, and finished a close second in New Hampshire. Jessy Jackson has never even come close to winning in any state, therefore Obama has already proved that he is far more effective than the perpetual gas bag that you are touting.

He is also the Elected US Senator from a large State. Jessy Jackson is the elected what?.

You sure have a very warped sense of reality.

;;; Liam, you ignorant obama lover. check out the history. The Rev. Jackson won 12 states or so in 1988. Before you open your foul mouth, you should check the history first. You are so shallow, naive, and may i add, so stupid!!!

poetry wrote on January 13, 2008 2:08 PM:

Whatever Obama's views on the Iraq war before he got into the U.S. senate, since he became a U.S. senator, he has voted the same as Hillary on funding the war.

The Boston Globe reported on March 22, 2007:

As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.

"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."

Yet Obama has voted for all of the president's war funding requests since coming to the Senate, and is poised to vote in favor of the latest request when it comes to the Senate floor this spring. Liberal groups have demanded that lawmakers cut off funds for the war as a way to force its end, but Obama has joined most Democrats in the House and Senate in saying he would not take such a move.
http://tinyurl.com/2cjnxb

Later that spring, May 24, 2008, BOTH Obama and Hillary voted "no" on additional Iraq war funding.
http://tinyurl.com/2fmr2v

Liam wrote on January 13, 2008 2:14 PM:

The Clintons lost the Democrat Majority in both Houses, and were one of the main reasons that Shrub got into the White House and began the process of filling the Supreme Court with Right Wing justices.

We can not afford any more of those Democrat Majority destroying Clintons.

We have just started to crawl back out of the Congressional hole that the Clintons put us in, and if we put them back in power, the Republicans will take back the House and Senate, and control all aspects of the nation's policies and legal rulings for decades to come.

poetry wrote on January 13, 2008 2:15 PM:

Sorry, I meant to write:

Later that spring, May 24, 2007, BOTH Obama and Hillary voted "no" on additional Iraq war funding.

Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 2:16 PM:

Liam you moron, check this out:

Presidential candidate

[edit] 1984 election
In 1984, Jackson became the second African American (after Shirley Chisholm) to mount a nationwide campaign for President of the United States, running as a Democrat.

In the primaries, Jackson, who had been written off by pundits as a fringe candidate with little chance at winning the nomination, surprised many when he took third place behind Senator Gary Hart and former Vice President Walter Mondale, who eventually won the nomination. Jackson garnered 3.5 million votes and won five primaries and caucuses, including Louisiana, the District of Columbia, South Carolina, Virginia and one of two separate contests in Mississippi,[11]

As he had gained 21% of the popular vote but only 8% of delegates, he afterwards complained that he had been handicapped by party rules. While Mondale (in the words of his aides) was determined to establish a precedent with his vice presidential candidate by picking a woman or visible minority, Jackson criticized the screening process as a "p.r. parade of personalities". He also mocked Mondale, saying that Hubert Humphrey was the "last significant politician out of the St. Paul–Minneapolis" area. [12]

[edit] 1988 election
Four years later, in 1988, Jackson once again offered himself as a candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. This time, his successes in the past made him a more credible candidate, and he was both better financed and better organized. Although most people did not seem to believe he had a serious chance at winning, Jackson once again exceeded expectations as he more than doubled his previous results, prompting R.W. Apple of the New York Times to call 1988 "the Year of Jackson". [13]

He captured 6.9 million votes and won 11 contests; seven primaries (Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico and Virginia) and four caucuses (Delaware, Michigan, South Carolina and Vermont).[14]. Jackson also scored March victories in Alaska's caucuses and Texas's local conventions, despite losing the Texas primary.[1] [2] Some news accounts credit him with 13 wins. [3] Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates.

Marcia from Sarasota wrote on January 13, 2008 2:18 PM:

I am more determined than ever, after her appearance this morning, to vote for her. If she gets the nomination, with all this vitriol, does anyone think Barack would take the VP spot? Or would that be politics as usual?

JO wrote on January 13, 2008 2:20 PM:

To colonpowwow. To explain the what the Clinton strategy may be:

First, primaries are entirely different than the Nov. election. Strategies are pursued that are meant to be dropped like hot potatoes after the nomination is secure. HRC's problem in the primary season is that whereas she might once have counted on the African American vote in the primaries, Obama's presence makes that doubtful. Hence her admittedly awkward attempt to say, in effect, "Obama is all talk; I'm the one who can deliver the goods, just like you think Bill did." How do you say that without mentioning the names Barack Obama or Bill Clinton? Her "rhetoric versus reality" line also addresses another HRC dilemma: whereas Obama's rhetoric moves the spirit, HRC's presentation grates on the nerves for many, many people. It hurts her feelings, but there it is. Solution: say she can deliver without the rhetorical uplift...just like LBJ.

Second, IF Hillary is to be nominated without the support of African Americans, she needs to rally as many non-African American Democratic votes as possible. Strategy here: suggest to white Democrats (via surrogates like Andrew Cuomo et al.) that Democrats can't take the gamble of nominating a black man. Do this by reminding Democrats of the sort of underground trash talk Republicans will surely unleash against him--his name, his race, his time on the south side, etc. That's the Clinton version of the "race card" -- not that they are racists, but rather that HRC will save the party in November from the closet racists who would otherwise vote for a Democrat this time.

I suspect that HRC regrets having put her case in quite the way she did, nor have I seen any evidence that she is a racist. But race is a reality of this campaign, and since it isn't working in her favor, she feels she needs to counter its influence. Whether race really is a major factor is worth further discussion.

4civilrights wrote on January 13, 2008 2:27 PM:

Dear ShutupNvote:

Question: Who on earth ever said that the, "Dems Partys burning issue this election [is] to elect a Black President?"

Answer: nobody.

Your argument is a complete red herring. The issue we’ve been discussing is Sen. Clinton’s statement about MLK.

Even if you give her the benefit of the doubt on meaning, it’s a terrible assessment of the history and role of the civil rights movement.

I'm in agreement with db that "no parsing of her words can justify letting her off the hook for that monumental blunder. Besides, if what it takes is a president to make dreams come true, wouldn’t you want a president that actually speaks to your dreams instead of dissing them as 'false hopes.'"

I think it also brings into question her judgment and her commitment to bringing about change, instead of just following the polls.

The bigger issue is who can inspire voters, who can bring new people into the party, who can cut through the partisan attacks, and who can lead us in the 21st century. Republican insiders are terrified about Obama because they note that he has the ability to realign the entire political map, doing for the Center-Left what Reagan did for the Center-Right in 1980.

The Clinton camp holds to the position that change happens from the top down, while the Obama campaign believes change comes from the people. It’s the difference between a life-long politician (but with less legislative experience than Sen. Obama) and someone with experience in community organizing. The latter is actually interested in change, the former not so much…

Why is it that the Clintonistas are only interested in throwing around baseless charges against Sen. Obama, instead of actually working for change? The Obama campaign has worked diligently to stay above these attacks. The Clinton’s keep pushing it.

The Dems "burning issue" should be to elect a president that can heal the wounds of the Bush years and bring the country together.

Please tell me how Sen. Clinton's statements about MLK, about false hopes, or about change, do that?

db wrote on January 13, 2008 2:30 PM:

dear Marcia from Sarasota,

I'm genuinely curious about what Sen. Clinton said this morning that made you "more determined than ever" to vote for her.

Care to elaborate?

Thanks!

Matt A wrote on January 13, 2008 2:30 PM:

If Hillary is Lyndon Johnson, then who are her King and Kennedy? She praises Obama's oratory skills, is she recruiting him for that role? If so, and this may be a stretch for some of you, is she also saying in a very subtle way that a black man should know his place is not the presidency?

When she says that Obama was a part time sentator in Illinois, is she also saying that black people don't work as hard as white people?

Is she aware that she plays into racial stereotypes when she makes these attacks or not? It'd be worse if she were but if she isn't aware of it, isn't that a problem too?

Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 2:33 PM:

Senator Barack Obama never compared himself to either JFK or MLK. Why didn't Russert challenge HRC on this false assertion as well as her professed 35 years of experience with she continues to repeat ad nauseam. She also completely distorted Obama's track record and votes in regard to his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Hillary is a shameless spin machine, disingenuous, condescending,and arrogant. To hear her claim her presidential ambitions :"this is very personal, not political" when she "choked" in N.H. sounds as believable as her claim that this is all about helping people from the minute she steps out from bed. And let's be clear about one thing from the get go. It's Senator Barack Obama vs. Hillary AND Bill Clinton. She is the proxy candidate for a Bill Clinton restoration. If you ever had any doubts what this is all about, Bill's performance in N.Hampshire allayed all doubts. So much for all this talk of electing a woman. This is a package deal. A dysfunctional one at that, with heavy baggage. As much as she polarizing and divisive, he is still well-liked by the majority of Democrats. It makes the head spin. That they are even in contention is due to the 8 dismal years of the Bush administration which make the Clinton years seem like a picnic. I strongly oppose their restoration and deeply resent their feeling they are owed the W.H. back. Furthermore,
what a revolting misogyny to endow Hillary's tears with the power to influence voters. The world watches in disbelief.
Three weeks before the N.H. primary, Barack Obama trailed 12 points behind Hillary. He ended-up losing by less than 3 points. He won 9 delegates,the same amount as Hillary, and leads the count with 25 vis a vis Hillary's 24. So let's put the N.H. results in context.
To suggest there is no substance to Barack Obama is
patently absurd and dismissive of those who voted for him in Iowa and N.Hampshire and of the thousands who continue to line-up for hours to hear him speak. Barack Obama is in a league of his own and this is why he will prevail.

poetry wrote on January 13, 2008 2:33 PM:

"Liam":

I think many people would argue it was Clinton's 1993 tax increase (mostly on the top 2%) that was the issue catapulting the Republicans into control of Congress in the 1994 election.

Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice-President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the actual bill and the conference report. In the House the bill passed 219-213. President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.

Republican warnings

The entire bill was very controversial. Many Republicans warned that many of the bills provisions would result in economic catastrophe and that deficit would actually increase. The recently elected President Bill Clinton was criticized by many for what was perceived as a reversal of his campaign pledge to cut middle class taxes although in actuality taxes increased on only the top 2% of taxpayers. Many Americans initially were supportive of changes in the tax code to help the economy and lower the deficit (according to public opinion polls taken at the time). Nonetheless, by the mid-term elections of 1994, many American voters were galvanized by the Republican charge that the Democratic Party had raised their taxes, though Republican warnings of a recession never materialized.

http://tinyurl.com/ou4rl

In fact, Clinton's 1993 tax increase led to the longest economic expansion in American history.
http://tinyurl.com/yokbdl

ShutupNvote wrote on January 13, 2008 2:37 PM:

fillphil wrote on January 13, 2008 1:58 PM:

Your commentary is part of the problem, the two positions are not interchangeable equally, this is a Swifting of the Clintons period, the two positions do not have equal merit there is a extensive record to be assessed in the context of these inflammatory attacks the hate bating we are all now used to and apparently now wielded so easily, we are not obligated to believe.

If this is the Dems Partys burning issue this election to elect a Black President fine, so be it just say so. I happen to believe that is extremely important as a main criteria and I also believe the same if slightly more for myself actually, the important criterion of an inclusive women being elected. Now there is every thing as well to add else, gas, recession, Iraq, 401k equity, soc sec, health care, hate baiting, debt, children, education in this country our children in our communities, voting records, experience, delectability, values virtues..

I am beginning to see this Party may really not be capable of sending a nominee the country, the special interest hooks look to deep, the strings obviously to easily jerked, get around who is relevant to the issues we need to resolve what is more divisive then Senator Obamas spokesperson charge of Racism. What will happen now Senator Obama is going to claim the Republicans are racist and thats how he will get them to work with him, well good luck on that one. Pitiful, this race wedgies looks particularly unflattering on this elephant’s buttttt.

And this is obviously not stopping I for one am going to change my request to a Republican ballot for my primary, just in case this party shoots itself in the foot again. I don’t want change I really NEED change to prosper.

keith smith wrote on January 13, 2008 2:44 PM:

What keeps catching my ear in this campaign is all the allowances and space for talking about hidden race agendas and impugning racism, and how little space and allowance there is for talking about sexism. this tells me that we've come a lot further in dealing with racism than we have in dealing with sexism in this country. that alone makes me want to vote for HRC.

poetry wrote on January 13, 2008 2:47 PM:

"fillphil":

I agree we Democrats should not cut up our own candidates, but I truly believe a lot of the haters on this bulletin board are rightwingers who are posting here to do as much damage as they can and are trying to foment as much hatred for our Democratic candidates as they can.

Yes, I am supporting Hillary Clinton, but I have stated over and over that I like all the Democratic candidates and will cheerfully and energetically work for whichever of them becomes the Democratic nominee. We Democrats have a very strong group of candidates this time and we should be joyful for that.

The haters on this list make it clear they will never vote for the Democratic candidate they hate so much -- and by so doing, expose themselves as NOT being Democrats or progressives.

Beware of rightwingers who are posting here to divide us.

bvd wrote on January 13, 2008 2:47 PM:

I've said repeatedly on TPM's board that, although I support Obama, I will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is. I'm now at the point where I'm not sure if that's true anymore.

Hillary (and the despicable Bill) are turning me off so much that I might not be able to vote for her in the general election. If they continue trying to destroy Obama in this way she will lose my vote. And for the record I have voted for the Democrat in every presidential election since I turned 18 in 1976. I disliked most of them, but I voted for them anyway. That may very well come to an end this year.

Sorry. If they continue to campaign like Republicans they lose my vote.

Hillary on MTP video wrote on January 13, 2008 2:47 PM:

Complete Meet the Press video from January 13, 2008

Charles wrote on January 13, 2008 2:55 PM:

Senator Clinton has it wrong: "I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

The president did not get it done. The American people got it done by electing LBJ and enabling the Democrats to win a huge majority in the Congress. It was Congress that passed the law. It was a Congress that was moved ONLY because a combination of a social movement and a huge Democratic victory -- the formation of a broad majority for civil rights. Take away the social movement and the sweeping Democratic victory and nothing would have happened, as was the case in the Kennedy administration.

Major progressive change in the US does not happen because Democratic presidents want it. It happens because crisis, social movements, and sweeping electoral victories require it.

With luck, THAT is what Obama is about in this time of crisis. Clearly, Senator Clinton is not.

Charles wrote on January 13, 2008 2:59 PM:

Uh poetry,

"Getting it done" is not passing legislation. It is "changing the society." I would not want to defend the claim that LBJ changed the US for the better more profoundly than Martin Luther King.

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 13, 2008 3:04 PM:

I have to agree with the sentiments of colonpowwow (love the handle, by the way), as expressed above.

On its face, it's simply not logical to think or believe that it's the Clintons who have contaminated the primary campaign with racial issues. Where's the upside to such a self-destructive strategy? It just doesn't make any sense that two people as politically astute as Hillary and Bill Clinton would ever be that obtuse. Why on God's green earth would they suddenly decide to alienate what has been to this point their most loyal core constituency?

Rather, I once again cast my now-thoroughly jaundiced eye at the corporate-owned and GOP-friendly media itself, which has with few exceptions all-too-gleefully and willingly offered selected quotes and soundbites completely out-of-context to an apparently still-somewhat gullible public, so as to manufacture a false controversy that holds great potential to damage Mrs. Clinton's campaign.

Unfortunately (if also understandably), the Obama campaign and its supporters have for equally obvious reasons hitched a ride on the media's virtual bandwagon, happily dispensing its GOP-originated talking points about the Clintons, as though oblivious to the very real prospect that this same corporate media will turn just as vigorously and rabidly on them, once the Clinton campaign has been rendered indisposed for the foreseeable future.

Frankly, I for one don't consider myself a political rube, and I have come to bitterly resent the Obama campaign's apparent thinking that rank-and-file Democratic voters can be played for such.

While Obama's doubtless a brilliant speaker who possesses an innate and admirable capacity to inspire, his campaign thus far consists primarily of political pablum and bromides, offering very little in way of substance and policy. Thus, he is now straddling the fine line between stirring oratory and outright demagogy.

Suffice then for me to say that Barack Obama has proven himself to be to the Democratic Party, what the city of Oakland was to Gertrude Stein. And in so doing, he now epitomizes for me the very sort of politician my late grandmother, a committed FDR Democrat, would have described caustically as "all meringue and no filling."

This otherwise-skillful political high-wire act of his, this opportunistic willingness to become a blank screen upon which trusting people will see in him exactly what they want to see, is simply doomed to failure.

As Abraham Lincoln once wisely observed that you can't fool all the people all the time, Barack Obama has apparently yet to learn the bitter lesson that neither can you can't please everyone in perpetuity.

I would urge people to read A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win, by Shelby Steele, an award-winning scholar and author whose contributions to the study of race and race relations in America have been widely recognized and lauded.

If you haven't the time prior to your respective state's Democratic primary or caucus, then at least watch Shelby Steele's interview on Bill Moyers' Journal, where they engage the topic of the Obama phenomenom. Here's the link: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01112008/profile2.html.

Aloha.

Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 3:06 PM:

I could not believe that Hillary Clinton said the following: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done."
This is totally unacceptable for Hillary Clinton to say. Black people across the nation should demand an official apology from her. She covers herself under the umbrella of the Democratic Party to gain African American support, and votes. However, she does not represent the party ideology. I am afraid that she is just a hypocrite and an opportunist who fooled the black community in the past. I am afraid that was clearly a racist comment. She was right when she said that she found her voice in New Hampshire thereafter. She does not even have a modicum of restraint for our most respectable hero - A man who gave his life for the freedom of back people. I could not believe that she said the following: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done."
Not only she is going to loose the votes of the black people in South Carolina, but also she is going to loose the black votes across the nation. The last time I remember checking the official US census, Black people account for about 12.8% of the population

Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 3:08 PM:

Don't know who to believe? Don't know what is spin and what isnt? Hear it from hillary's own mouth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

Splitting Image wrote on January 13, 2008 3:11 PM:

Totally agree that they should make it a habit to publish entire quotes. Their only reason for not doing so is to make the quote into a soundbite.

I don't think it makes that big a difference in this case, though. What was offensive about the Clinton remark was that it came out of her mouth at the same time as her campaign pushed the idea that Obama's candidacy was pushing "false hope"... like Martin Luther King Jr.

What matters is why the Clintons chose this tack in the first place: Obama had been more successful in Iowa at transcending race than Clinton had been in transcending gender. Clinton therefore launched a veiled attack on Dr. King, knowing Obama would have to defend him and turn into a "black candidate" again.

Publishing the entire quote doesn't change that, but it would show the news organizations have their wits about them.

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 13, 2008 3:12 PM:

Oops. I mistakenly added a period at the end of the link I provided, where it should't have been. My bad.

Here's the correct link to Bill Moyers' interview with author Shelby Steele: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01112008/profile2.html

LIAM GO AWAY wrote on January 13, 2008 3:19 PM:

Hi! Me again
Thank You! Liam you called me the yahoo racist and the racist yahoo! Yes! I had a HRC moment, but I got over it! I am better, but some Google stock is better as Mitt might say; Yahoo is good too; the "r" word, well you can have it Liam!

Poetry you got it! Gore made it happen! Also, let us not forget Perot!

Liam no doubt, you are special

Have a happy MLK Day, Liam

Some person on the Internets wrote on January 13, 2008 3:20 PM:

Hillary: "Clearly we know from media reports"...

Um, that is one of the lamest accusations I have ever heard.

I agree with the comments above. I defended Bill Clinton all throughout the 1990s, campaigned and voted for him. But I no longer support either Bill or Hillary.

Obama all the way in 2008!

Charles wrote on January 13, 2008 3:30 PM:

Skimmed Steele's comments. More than he deserves.

It is the case that Obama, like most politicians, uses ambiguity and generality as a way to attract support from those with different political values. He is trying to build a majority to defeat two powerful and entrenched political machines: Clintons and the GOP.

On the other hand, to say that he is primarily a "bargainer" - and the first of his kind at that - is, to use the technical jargon, crap.

Further, Steele seems to view the Clinton-Obama context largely in terms of categories of race and gender -- as if the nation faces no serious issues other than the ways these two reflect the nature of race and gender in America. Steele may well be the Dr. Phil of political commentators.

Obama and Edwards understand what no other candidate does: that this is not just another election and that the two terms of George Bush place the American people and the American experiment in grave, even mortal, danger.

This election is NOT primarily about electing an African-American or woman. It is about building a real political majority that will undo the damage caused by Bush and envision and enact a better American future.

Desider wrote on January 13, 2008 3:32 PM:

Stivo,

Okay, so your accusation about LBJ in Congress obstructing civil rights is completely wrong as I suspected:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a383df9e-9d33-4b57-b832-a75b7c4d0d0c&k=27752
"Lyndon Johnson, perhaps as much as any politician of the time, understood the political and historical stakes just as well. As Senate Majority Leader, he had pushed through the Congress, in 1957, the first piece of civil rights legislation since the Reconstruction era."

"...And when Johnson, in his speech to Congress on voting rights in 1965, quoted and embraced the civil rights battle cry--"We Shall Overcome"--Dr. King openly wept. He called Johnson at the White House. "It is ironic, Mr. President," said King, "that after a century, a southern white President would help lead the way toward the salvation of the Negro."

Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 3:38 PM:

Don from Hawaii wrote:

"On its face, it's simply not logical to think or believe that it's the Clintons who have contaminated the primary campaign with racial issues. Where's the upside to such a self-destructive strategy?"

Because what is the viable alternative? The Clinton's know the country is so pissed off they will never elect a repug, especially with the disgusting candidates on the GOP side.

They know also, that regardless of what side of the Obama/Clinton divide you are on - we will hold our nose and vote for whoever the dem nominee is. We have to wrestle away power from the repugs.

That being said, the only obstacle in the clintons way is Obama. With his ethical record and inspiring persona reminding us what America is all about, they have only one way to defeat this opponent - tap into the cynicism America currently holds against government and find a way to direct to towards Obama.

By dirtying up his record by half truths and outright lies. (Note the clintons were the recipient of many of these from the GOP.) They know how well they stick personally. If you can't beat em - join em.

We have got to get out of this spiral dems. We just have to. There is the fierce urgency of now.

Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 3:40 PM:

Still think Hillary has the foresight to lead?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

Charles wrote on January 13, 2008 3:42 PM:

On LBJ and MLK:

If it had not been for MLK (and the social movement he helped lead), LBJ would have died a cracker.

RE: Shelby Steele wrote on January 13, 2008 3:42 PM:

HELLooooo.......

How about Keyes, Ennis, Williams, Thomas! This is from another world! This is Jim Johnson Kool-Aid Extra. In this day and age to listen and accept anything that Steele advocates on any issue go for it, drink all you can! P.T. Barnum had something right!

Laocoon wrote on January 13, 2008 3:48 PM:

I don't believe Hillary is a racist anymore than I believe Obama is a sexist or that Edwards is a "faggot".

I believe that any of the three will be more sensitive to these topics than any of the Republicans.

I also believe these topics are stale; they are part of a previous century's angst and that it is time to move on.

Finally, I believe that many Democratic Party voters supporting these candidates are "radicalized" on these topics, finding monsters under every bed, and that these non-candidate Democratic voters themselves are driving these controversies the actual candidates would all like to avoid for the sake of the general election when one of them will face a candidate whose supporters genuinely ARE racist, sexist and/or homophobic.

I conclude that at least SOME of the comments I read here are from Republican circles that are more than happy to stir up trouble in another's house.

freaktown wrote on January 13, 2008 3:51 PM:

Greg Sargent:

I find it interesting you keep mention a "truncated" version of Hillary's quote, but you never ever mention how Hillary and Bill are using a truncated version of Obama's statement from 2004...

but you're not biased or anything so i'm sure its just an empty headed mistake.

CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 3:59 PM:

Tuesday night's debate should be something to see.

Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 3:59 PM:

Freaktown wrote:
"Greg Sargent:

I find it interesting you keep mention a "truncated" version of Hillary's quote, but you never ever mention how Hillary and Bill are using a truncated version of Obama's statement from 2004...

but you're not biased or anything so i'm sure its just an empty headed mistake."

Thank you freaktown. It is a sad thing when the one of the authors on a blog we come to for straight facts has turned Spin MD.

Ree wrote on January 13, 2008 4:31 PM:

These types of stories are theatre and distracting us from the real issues.

db wrote on January 13, 2008 4:48 PM:

Hilarious! Now I've seen everything.

Does anyone really think Shelby Steele is a credible source on Democratic politics?

Steele is a self-described "Black conservative." He's employed by the conservative Hoover Institution.

Steele's career has centered around attempting to position conservatives as the true saviors of African-Americans. Just take a look at his book, White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. It's essentially an attack on Civil Rights organizations and the Democratic Party.

Steele also opposes measures such as affirmative action, which he considers to be unsuccessful liberal campaigns to promote equal opportunity for African Americans. He has minuscule (if any) support in the black community.

This is the expertise that's supposed to absolve Sen. Clinton of responsibility for these statements? I don't think so... Nice try, though.

THANKS db wrote on January 13, 2008 4:56 PM:

db wrote on January 13, 2008 4:48 PM:

Hilarious! Now I've seen everything.

Does anyone really think Shelby Steele is a credible source on Democratic politics?

Thanksdb, Jim Johnson Kool Aid Extra may have mislead a few folks, maybe hemlock would be better.

RE: Shelby Steele wrote on January 13, 2008 3:42 PM:

HELLooooo.......

How about Keyes, Ennis, Williams, Thomas! This is from another world! This is Jim Johnson Kool-Aid Extra. In this day and age to listen and accept anything that Steele advocates on any issue go for it, drink all you can! P.T. Barnum had something right!

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 13, 2008 5:21 PM:

Mary, with regards to your 3:38pm post, you obviously are going to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of any arguments to the contrary that are presented here, and far be it for me to question your rationale for that. I respect your decision to support Sen. Obama.

However, as far as Sen. Obama's ethical record is concerned, I would offer you his long-standing political relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who's a long-time Chicago Democratic operative now under federal indictment for corruption and political influence peddling, ostensibly on behalf of Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

It is an irrefutable fact that Rezko both organized and hosted a number of lucrative fundraisers for Sen. Obama over the years, and futher that both men had recently engaged in a quid pro quo real estate transaction on Chicago's south side that most definitely raised some public eyebrows.

While it's most certainly a stretch to in any way allude that Obama was somehow entangled intimately in Rezko's affairs, it's by no means an exaggeration to state that the senator showed an overt willingness to do business with the man when it proved to be to his immediate benefit.

And while it is true that Sen. Obama has since issued a public mea culpa regarding his relationship and personal business dealings with Rezko, it should also be duly noted that such regrets were offered by the senator only following Rezko's indictment, thus rendering both his explanations and his apologies simultaneously after-the-fact and beside the point.

If you wish to inquire further about the Obama-Rezko relationship, with its various attendant allegations therein, please begin with the following:

ABC News, The Rezko Connection: Obama's Achilles Heel? (January 10, 2008) - http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1

Chicago Tribune, Rezko owns vacant lot next to Obama's home (November 1, 2006) - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0611010273nov01,1,2852476.story

Chicago Business News, Obama says arrangements with Rezko proper: paper (November 1, 2006)- http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=22694&seenIt=1

Chicago Sun-Times Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake (November 5, 2006) - http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

Washington Post, Obama Says He Regrets Land Deal With Fundraiser (December 17, 2006) - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html

Chicago Sun-Times Obama's Rezko ties deeper than land deal (December 23, 2006) - http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/184540,122306obama.article

Chicago Tribune, Obama still answers for old ties to Rezko (April 24, 2007) - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0704230648apr24,1,671186.story

Like I said above, you obviously are going to believe whatever you want to believe. That's ultimately your decision, and yours alone, so I must respect that and further assume that you probably arrived at that decision neither lightly nor frivolously.

With that being said, I would only request that offer to others the same courtesy that I have afforded you here, in that you both recognize and respect that many of us have our own reasons for harboring grave reservations about the candidacy of the good senator from Illinois, and that such reasons are perhaps just as equally valid as your own apparent doubts about the good senator from New York.

Because, as you have no doubt noticed, when called upon to do so, I can and will support, with documentation if necessary, my contentions and personal opinions. Were we to engage in any further discussion, I'd suggest that you and other Obama supporters here start doing the same.

Aloha.

bvd wrote on January 13, 2008 5:33 PM:

Here's Obama on the war in 2002 and after. Not the least bit equivocal. We should all be praising him for it, not twisting his words around to knock him down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

You can find more by searching youtube with "Obama 2002 Iraq".

As for why Hillary and the other Dems supported it: they'd taken hits for voting against Desert Storm so this time they jumped on the bandwagon. No one will admit it but it's that simple. And how horrible is it to admit they supported going to war to save their political careers?

I'll gladly take Obama. The worst claims you can make against him - even if true - are matched ten-fold by Hillary.

Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 5:34 PM:

Donald,

Taking it as a point of fact that Obama is too corrupt to be President because of the unproven innuendo about Rezko, doesn't that doubly or triply exclude the Clintons from the Presidency?

Please make a case for the Clintons being free of scandal and innuendo and thereby warranting your support despite a long and public record of scandal and innuendo.

Tell me how you can care about the mote you think you see in Obama's eye when there is a beam sticking out of Hillary's eye.

I can't get an answer to this question despite asking it over and over and I'm beginning to think it is because it requires a principled argument and the Clinton folks apparently don't do principles.

bvd wrote on January 13, 2008 5:35 PM:

I mean the Dems had taken hits, Hillary was obvisouly not in Congress for Desert Storm. Just to clarify...

db wrote on January 13, 2008 5:39 PM:

Dear Donald the Troll from Hawaii,

As someone who's lived in Illinois for over a decade, I've watched this attempted smear for some time now.

Guess what, everyone real reporter who's looked at this has concluded that this is indeed much ado about nothing. These charges come from GOP operatives. Obama has clearly and sufficiently answered this baseless claim.

Not surprising that you'd be regurgitating them, given that you were also the one to drudge up the Shelby Steele nonsense.

Also, what on earth does it have to do with Sen. Clinton's statement? Nice try to change the topic.

I would also sincerely urge Clinton supporters to re-consider throwing around accusations about shady land deals. I can't even believe I have to say this, but does "Whitewater" ring any bells?

Is that the kind of politics that the Clintonistas want to promote? Do they want to do to other Democrats what the GOP did to them? No wonder they're so opposed to change.

Aloha

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 13, 2008 5:41 PM:

"Hilarious! Now I've seen everything. Does anyone really think Shelby Steele is a credible source on Democratic politics?"

No more than I think that you've either read any of Mr. Steele's academic treatises, nor even bothered to watch his interview with Bill Moyers, in which he stated how incredibly proud he was, as an African-American, of both Obama's candidacy and its progress to this point.

And while Steele has never claimed to be an authority or credible source on Democratic politics, you most certainly are proving yourself not to be, when you offer such rabidly foolish partisan hackery that's full of dismissive personal invective.

why don't you at least watch the Moyersinterview first, and then come back here and perhaps engage in a reasoned discussion about Steele's premise in a more civil tone? I'll be back in a couple of hours, after I finish getting my football fix for the afternoon.

Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 5:51 PM:

I'll gladly take Obama. The worst claims you can make against him - even if true - are matched ten-fold by Hillary.

That is EXACTLY what has the Clinton campaign flummoxed to the point of having to try to suppress turnout in Nevada.

No matter what argument they throw up about Obama, it tears them down even more when applied to them.

I'd honestly hate to be in the Clinton's position right now. No matter who you think would make a better President, the Clintons are in the very unattractive place of having to run against everything they've ever claimed to believe in, because at this point, Obama represents that vision and the future and the Clintons represent failed policies, divisive politics and tired triangulation of the past.

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 13, 2008 6:05 PM:

db: "Dear Donald the Troll from Hawaii:"

Never mind, db. I rest my case.

You sound like a very foolish and nasty little person of very little no substance, who apparently prefers to sling poo like monkeys in a zoo to having a rational dialogue.

And you most certainly aren't doing the Obama campaign or Democrats in general any favors with your vicious posts.

And FYI, I lived in Illinois for far longer than you currently have, because my father's family was rooted in the northwest side and NW suburbs, I attended Lake Zurich High School (2007 Class7A state football champions - Go Bears!), and I still keep up on events back there via the internet and numerous trips to visit my family.

Further, I'm a long-time Democratic activist who first cut his teeth holding signs for the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington's re-election campaign, then as a Hawaii district coordinator for the Rev. Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign. And in 2003-2004 I was the executive director for the Hawaii Democratic Party (and, because of my position with the party, a closeted supporter of Gov. Howard Dean).

Therefore, as it stands, I'll gladly continue to trust my own admittedly limited knowledge of Illinois politics over your nonsensical hackery, 24/7 and 365.

Aloha, putz.

justin michael wrote on January 13, 2008 6:06 PM:

I wonder how long the media is going to continue to give Hillary a free pass on this. Since losing Iowa she and her husband have consistently employed dirty tactics to attack Sen. Obama while his camp has taken the high road and generally refused to respond in kind. He has repeatedly stated that all the candidates are patriots while Hillary has invoked the failed terrorist attack in France to imply that the nation may be more vulnerable to terrorist attack if Obama is elected. These are Rovian tactics.

We saw it again today on Meet The Press. Rather than simply respond directly to or apologize for the alarming pattern of subtle racially motivated attacks hurled at Sen. Obama (speculating an implied drug dealing past may be exploited by the Republicans, Andrew Cuomo's Shuckin'& Jivin' remark, Pres. Clinton referring to Sen. Obama as a 'kid', Clinton folks stating that voting for Obama would be akin to supporting a 'hip Black friend', condescendingly referring to Sen. Obama as a good speaker), she instead decided to insist that the Obama campaign is responsible for all of this.

Hillary's implication that the outrage the African American community has voiced regarding the racially charged remarks of her campaign is some sort of manifestation of an Obama campaign strategy is almost just as insulting as her recent comments. It is as if the Clinton campaign believes African Americans are not able to think for themselves and can only take cues and do what they're told rather than think independently.

Whatever happened to personal accountability? Just apologize for the gaffs and move forward. No matter who you prefer in this race I think we can all agree that Americans are tired of leaders who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. Hillary's recent posturing and stubbornness to admit wrongdoing is eerily similar to that of George W. Bush. No wonder Karl Rove seems to be endorsing her candidacy.

bvd wrote on January 13, 2008 6:22 PM:

And if anyone can show me where the Obama campaign has tried to supress the vote - as the Clinton campaign is now trying to do in Nevada - I'll admit I'm wrong.

Democrats are supposed fight for the right to vote. Doing the opposite is disgusting.

In today's New York Times:

D. Taylor, the secretary-treasurer of Culinary Local 226, criticized the lawsuit as “despicable” and “disgusting.”

“I never thought we’d have people in the Democratic Party try to disenfranchise women, people of color and large numbers of working people in this state,” Mr. Taylor said. “I am sure every single elected official in Nevada will renounce it, and so will the Clinton campaign.

“If there’s not a renouncing of it,” he added, “then there’s an agreement with it.”

A Clinton campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, said in a statement: “We hope the courts and the state party resolve this matter. We will respect their decision and focus our efforts on running a strong campaign.”

Yeah, exactly. Well, fuck them.

RE: Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 13, 2008 6:25 PM:

Oh! Donald, you words and weight do no match:
"Further, I'm a long-time Democratic activist who first cut his teeth holding signs for the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington's re-election campaign, then as a Hawaii district coordinator for the Rev. Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign. And in 2003-2004 I was the executive director for the Hawaii Democratic Party (and, because of my position with the party, a closeted supporter of Gov. Howard Dean)."

The problem is Shelby Steele; from a phrase of yesterday "it just don't fit" so to speak & those six web sites; this stuff gives you away. Like it is bit too strong, two sites maybe but six.....
db appears to be correct, you blowing smoke! GO AWAY

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 13, 2008 6:32 PM:

Duane: "Taking it as a point of fact that Obama is too corrupt to be President because of the unproven innuendo about Rezko ..."

Nobody said that Sen. Obama was corrupt. Just because he knew Tony Rezko, or did business with the man, doesn't and shouldn't automatically infer such an assumption. And if you re-read my post, you'll note my saying so.

But when it comes to politics, even the appearance of potential impropriety is as damaging as any actual act of wrongdoing. That's one lesson we can derive from the Clintons, and that should apply to Obama as well.

And if Obama is our nominee, we better be prepared to deal with the Rezko scandal in far better terms than db's shockingly dismissive manner, which struck me as utterly wishful thinking.

This is especially if -- as rumor would have it and so often circulates in these sorts of matters -- Rezko seeks a deal with Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (remember him?) and flips on both Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and, perhaps by extention, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley's entire Democratic machine.

I would only urge you to read the articles I've linked, and then make up your own mind about the issue. As you would further note from my post, the ABC News story about Rezko was first aired but three days ago. So obviously, this ss not necessarily, as db mistakenly contends, water under the Democrats' bridge.

Aloha.

db wrote on January 13, 2008 6:45 PM:

Dear Donald the Troll from Hawaii,

Again, nice try. I give you points for a valiant effort attempting to change the topic away from Clinton's disastrous MLK comments. Once again, your comments are entirely non-germane to the discussion, and non-responsive to the issues other discussants have raised. (That’s the definition of a “troll” btw.)

This isn't a discussion thread about Steele's hypothesis. It's about Sen. Clinton's complete misunderstanding of the history of the era, the role of the civil rights movement and how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 got passed. No parsing of her words can justify letting her off the hook for that monumental blunder.

Why is it that you keep wanting to change the subject? Perhaps because what she said is indefensible?

Sen. Clinton could've easily made this go away, but instead chose to dig herself an even deeper hole again today. Why?

For the record, if you must know, I watched the Moyers interview when it originally aired, and have read all four of Steele's books, I’ve also read the work of most of the other “Black conservatives.” Talk about hackery! Steele’s body of work has calculatedly been trying to drive a wedge between white progressives and African Americans for years. It’s part of larger conservative efforts to divide and conquer. Steele’s arguments have little resonance in the black community and we certainly don’t need a recitation of his nonsense here.

I have to admit that I find it funny how you resort to ad hominem attacks, throwing out comments about my supposed "foolish partisan hackery" and the this alleged "personal invective?"

Why is it partisan (let alone “foolish”) to think that Sen. Clinton’s comments were inartful and inappropriate? (I think you’ll find that growing consensus reaching across the political spectrum). Where’s the invective in my pointing out that your source had a bias? There’s nothing personal in any of that, Donald. Sorry, but those comments focus on Sen. Clinton and Mr. Steele. (BTW, the “troll” comment wasn’t an insult directed at you, it was a flag to other discussion thread readers about the character of your posts. Sorry if it came off wrong).

Now if you want to engage in a discussion about what Sen. Clinton said today on MTP, then let’s discuss. If not, I’m sure there’s a forum over at Free Republic that would love to hear about Mr. Steele’s position.

Cheers!

Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 6:49 PM:

@laocoon: I conclude that at least SOME of the comments I read here are from Republican circles that are more than happy to stir up trouble in another's house.

I wholeheartedly concur. I have long suspected the same.

@ Donald from Hawaii:
You are an erudite, informed, reasoned breath of fresh air. Mahalo for your posts.

party-of-one wrote on January 13, 2008 6:53 PM:

The new Hillary sure is sounding more and more like the old George W. Bush.

If she isn't paying Karl Rove for advice, he should sue her for trademark infringement.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 13, 2008 6:55 PM:

Ooops, left my name off the post above thanking Donald from Hawaii and concurring with laocoon.

Question for db: why do you refer to Donald from Hawaii as "Donald the troll"? Is a troll anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of how respectfully they do so? Is a troll anyone who supports Senator Clinton?

Donald's posts are erudite, they contribute to the debate, they offer substance and informed, reasoned arguments, and at no time does he resort to calling people names. Donald is one of the most untroll-like posters I have read here, and I would hope more of us (myself included, I admit to name-calling in the past) would follow his lead, regardless of what we believe and which candidate we support.

vdomeras wrote on January 13, 2008 6:56 PM:

The point of her comments seems valid to me. MLK certainly didn't think that he was going to change the law -- worked to cause the politicians to change the law. JFK was a charismatic and inspirational candidate, and fine president, but he was fairly ineffective legislatively and was losing momentum in that area when he died. JFK supported the civil rights movement only when public opinion made it impossible not to. Like Eisenhower before him, he had to take sides in the face of the unrest and violence. He didn't have the clout to move equal rights legislation forward, assuming that he wanted to.

LBJ used the wave of inspiration from the movement and from the JFK martyrdom to make the legislation a reality. If he is elected, I am willing to believe that Obama would be an excellent administrator and head of state, as was JFK. That alone would solve half of the problems created by the current administration -- foreign relations, foreign policy, respect for human rights and for the office of president.

It may be that Obama has some previously unrevealed and untested ability to make the kind of legislative changes that are necessary to deal with the health care and fiscal crises. But we have no way of knowing that. I believe that that is the point that Hillary was trying to make. Of course we are beyond the point at which any candidate can make a logical point without it being spun and distorted by the MSM and then overreacted to by supporters as well as the opposition.

Goldspinner wrote on January 13, 2008 7:05 PM:

Liam,

Even though I share your disgust with HRC, I must add another correction. In addition to the primaries won by Jesse Jackson, Sr. previously noted above, Jackson was also elected as a "shadow senator" for the District of Columbia in 1990. Had DC been admitted as a state in 1990, Jesse Jackson, Sr. would have received the the full rights and privileges accorded to a United States Senator. Jesse Jackson, Sr. was therefore an elected official who represented the capital of the free world (during a Republican administration, no less)!

Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 7:26 PM:

But when it comes to politics, even the appearance of potential impropriety is as damaging as any actual act of wrongdoing. That's one lesson we can derive from the Clintons, and that should apply to Obama as well.

So then you agree that it would be much more unwise to run Hillary, with all the baggage and scandals of the 90s than Obama who so far hasn't actually had any kind wrongdoing surface?

Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 7:42 PM:

It may be that Obama has some previously unrevealed and untested ability to make the kind of legislative changes that are necessary to deal with the health care and fiscal crises. But we have no way of knowing that. I believe that that is the point that Hillary was trying to make.

So, is the takeaway from this that trying and failing is the right kind of experience and that having a history of bringing people together to enact difficult legislation is the wrong kind of experience?

Isn't Obama right when he says that trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results is foolish? The results we got from '92 - '00 was lots and lots of Republican legislation signed into law by the Clintons, including DOMA.

I'm willing to roll the dice for a different outcome.

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 13, 2008 8:00 PM:

db, you're the one who's been disrespectful, and who's reduced this into a series of ad hominum attacks, not me. I'll make no apologies for how I think or fell, or for whgat I've said.

With regards to Mrs. Clinton's comments on Meet the Press this morning, the local NBC affiliate in Honolulu inexplicably doesn't air the show, and MSNBC won't show its rerun until 7:00pm HST, so I'm not going to comment on something that I haven't seen or heard.

However, it's been my contention that you're not honestly addressing the entire context of what Mrs. Clinton originally said, albeit inartfully, in which she was rebuking Presidents Kennedy (by name) and Eisenhower (by inference) for their respective failures to advocate dorcefully for comprehensive civil rights legislation during their terms in office.

Further, Mrs. Clinton was clearly pointing out the symbiotic relationship that existed at that time between President Lyndon Johnson, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil rights movement, with regards to the passage of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Suffice to say that while LBJ might not have felt compelled to act without the corresponding political pressure applied by MLK and that movement (nor would he have been able to, absent their moral presence), it is also patently obvious that neither of those aforementioned measures would have ever passed Congress, had not LBJ used every ounce of political capital, muscle and leverage at his disposal to overcome the collective and very determined opposition of southern Dixiecrats and conservative Republicans.

But that's not what you're saying about what Mrs. Clinton said. Rather, you and others apparently prefer to first take one or two statements from her discussion completely out of context, purposely misconstue that into a racially-coded attack upon MLK and the civil rights movement, and then happily hammer away at her ad nauseum, completely heedless of the potential damage you're inflicting upon our party as a whole.

And that's not only dishonest, it's become the pornographic soundtrack to Karl Rove favorite political wet dream. and that's what makes your attacks upon her, and by extension upon those who despise such intellectual dishonesty, nothing more than partisan hackery.

There, I've addressed it.

Now, with regards to Shelby Steele, I originally made reference to his book in passing, and posted a link to his PBS interview in case anyone wished to see what he and Bill Moyers discussed. Again, you were the one who seized upon that glancing reference as a means to dismiss my entire post about my reservations about Barack Obama.

Just because someone identifies himself as a conservative, as Mr. Steele does does not automatically confer upon him the adjective of "dishonest." He may work at Stanford University's Hoover Institute, but he's certainly no Victor David Hanson.

But if you'd like to think otherwise, then you're really proving yourself to be no different than those clowns at FreeRepublic.com who regularly trash liberals and Democrats, simply because they publicly identify themselves as such.

And agsin, you are no asset to Democrats when you casually engage in this sort of uncivil invective, calling people like me who might disagree with you trolls and telling us to go post at FreeRepublic.com.

That kind of juvenile taunting only poisons the atmosphere in which this much-needed intra-party political dialogue must take place, if we are to ever find common ground and find our way out of the mess the GOP has created for our country. And come November, the failure to reach some sort of mutual understanding and respect may well come vack to haunt us at the polls.

I don't claim to have a monopoly on truth, or to hold all the answers to our problems. But that admission on my part doesn't mean that you can necessarily lay claim to those yourself, as if by default. At some point, there must be a meeting of minds.

And if you really want to be part of the solution, then I'd respectfully suggest that you first take a deep breath, and then start using yours with respect to how you either engage your fellow Democrats like me, or characterize our candidates like Mrs. Clinton, Barack Obama, et al.

Aloha.

db wrote on January 13, 2008 8:23 PM:

Dear Imelda Blahnik:

As I mentioned before, I refer to Donald from Hawaii as a troll because his posts display classic signs of a discussion forum troll: continually changing the subject, moving target argumentative fallacies, ad hominem attacks, name calling and unresponsiveness to questions / comments of others on the list.

If my notation of concern about Donald’s post offended anyone, I apologize. I’ll no longer refer to him as a troll.

As for your questions:

I certainly don’t think that a troll is anyone who disagrees with me. Quite the contrary. I would welcome a thorough discussion of the issue at hand - Sen. Clinton’s defense of her MLK comments on MTP today.

On the other hand, let’s look at Donald from Hawaii’s behavior: Rather than engaging in a discussion about the quote, or the Clinton response, Donald from Hawaii attempted to steer the conversation to Obama is unelectable (according to a conservative). Instead of sticking to the topic of Clinton’s defense of the MLK gaffe on MTP today, then Donald from Hawaii accuses Obama of being tied to corruption. Instead of addressing the way the Clinton camp has handled the inartful statement, then Donald decides to attack me. Those are classic troll actions – trying to obfuscate a real issue of concern to a lot of people, irrespective of which candidate they support.

You’ll notice that Donald is the only one I’ve referred to as a troll. I may disagree with others arguments, but at least they actually willing to engage in debate. Donald, however, refuses to do that. He just wants to stir things up. Again, classic troll behavior.

You’ll also notice that despite my concerns about Donald being a troll, I have continued to engage his arguments. He, on the other hand, refuses to do the same. Every time he’s challenged on an issue, he tries to change the topic.

As for your comment about Donald not engaging in name calling, I suggest you go back and re-read the thread. You honestly think “rabidly foolish partisan hackery” and “nonsensical hackery” aren’t name calling? Come now… I’ve apologized for my comment, do you think Donald will?

Also, do you think Donald will stay on topic? Will he go back and answer the more than dozen questions that individuals have asked that have gone unanswered while he’s shifted from topic to topic? Do you think Donald will explain why he keeps defending Sen. Clinton’s quote?

Just curious…

GEE DONALD! wrote on January 13, 2008 8:41 PM:

RE: 8:00 pm POST

GO AWAY HERE:
Unlike db I chose not to engage in this discussion as it has little gravity. What ever your purpose it is invisible to me, I remain clueless. Serious discussion is clearly not your aim. HRC & Co. made the mistake of using language inconsistent with issues of the day. Remarks about the most extreme candidates, Kucinich and Paul, were not even close as demeaning as those directed at one, Obama.
In short HRC tried an Atwater/Rove tacit and got shot down; the blowback has been painful and will continue to be for HRC on a many issues. The most troubling aspect is that no reason can I determine that would account for this; HRC & Co. are not stupid. Worst, the same desperation can be seen in other areas, the law suit in Nevada! In short the basic rear is fear of HRC & Co.
The issue is not MLK or LBJ; it many respects they views were alike. Nor are the issues difference, the issue is cheap tricks! She got caught! Reasons are irrelevant!
In the American Experience race is a multi-faced issue, particularly the chattel slavery aspect. Yet, the political process shall continue!!!!!

As I earlier stated GO AWAY!!!!!

Keli wrote on January 13, 2008 9:29 PM:

I watched Meet the Press this morning, and I feel that Hillary did a very good job of explaining her case by not bad mouthing Obama. She also stated her stance in regards to the comments and how they have been taking out of context. As a black woman, I find no fault with her saying it took LBJ to realize MLK's vision.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 13, 2008 10:10 PM:

@db

Thank you for clarifying what you mean by a troll. As you explain, Donald is a troll because, in your words: "Rather than engaging in a discussion about the quote, or the Clinton response, Donald from Hawaii attempted to steer the conversation to Obama is unelectable...Instead of sticking to the topic of Clinton’s defense of the MLK gaffe on MTP today, then Donald from Hawaii accuses Obama of being tied to corruption.... etc, etc..

However, in his post above Donald said the following:

it's been my contention that you're not honestly addressing the entire context of what Mrs. Clinton originally said, albeit inartfully, in which she was rebuking Presidents Kennedy (by name) and Eisenhower (by inference) for their respective failures to advocate dorcefully for comprehensive civil rights legislation during their terms in office.

Further, Mrs. Clinton was clearly pointing out the symbiotic relationship that existed at that time between President Lyndon Johnson, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil rights movement, with regards to the passage of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Suffice to say that while LBJ might not have felt compelled to act without the corresponding political pressure applied by MLK and that movement (nor would he have been able to, absent their moral presence), it is also patently obvious that neither of those aforementioned measures would have ever passed Congress, had not LBJ used every ounce of political capital, muscle and leverage at his disposal to overcome the collective and very determined opposition of southern Dixiecrats and conservative Republicans.
But that's not what you're saying about what Mrs. Clinton said. Rather, you and others apparently prefer to first take one or two statements from her discussion completely out of context, purposely misconstue that into a racially-coded attack upon MLK and the civil rights movement, and then happily hammer away at her ad nauseum...

Based on this I would say that Donald does *not* meet the definition of a troll as you explained. He appears to in fact be directly addressing the topic at hand and attempting to argue, using evidence and reason, why he thinks Clinton's comments are being taken out of context. His arguments are directly relevant to the matter at hand.

So I respectfully disagree - Donald obviously has strong reservations about Obama as a nominee, but he is not a troll.

Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 10:31 PM:

Further, Mrs. Clinton was clearly pointing out the symbiotic relationship that existed at that time between President Lyndon Johnson, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil rights movement, with regards to the passage of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

I noticed she forgot to mention that she was a Goldwater supporter. Goldwater was running against Johnson, whom she gives all the credit to for the civil rights movement.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 13, 2008 10:39 PM:

db,

Based on your definition, it seems pretty clear that Duane is a troll.

Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 11:02 PM:

eorse said: "[The] Clintons are the most powerful couple on this Planet."

That's strange...I thought the most powerful couple on the planet were George Bush and Karl Rove.

Matt A wrote on January 13, 2008 11:05 PM:

Yes, Goldwater Girl Hillary is not the one to bring up the civil rights movement or past indiscretions. I don't think she is racist (although I'm beginning to wonder) but I do think that she is willing to do just about anything to win including using race as a wedge issue. Is she going to announce that she hired Karl Rove as a campaign advisor or is it all under the table?

Wil Burns wrote on January 13, 2008 11:09 PM:

I just watched Hillary on Meet the Press. She was great!



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22636041#22636041

Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 11:17 PM:

Stop, stop, you're both right!

It's important to remember that it is the the best interests of the MSM and the GOP to get dems arguing among themselves of irrelvant matters. Race vs. gender? Who could have seen THAT dispute coming? Maybe, um...Karl Rove? (Who coincidentally has begun writing WSJ columns about it and now has a regular forum to show his "concern" about gender and race in Time.) Grow up, people. Let voters punish Hill for her insensitivity this week, and let them punish Barack for his next week. We need everybody on board, so shuttt uppp!

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 14, 2008 12:08 AM:

GEE DONALD!: "What ever your purpose it is invisible to me, I remain clueless."

In your particular case, truer words as these were never spoken.

(Gee, you're right. It IS fun to take statements out of context, and then bludgeon the speaker with them.)

And to state the obvious, I'm still here.

Anonymous: "Grow up, people. Let voters punish Hill for her insensitivity this week, and let them punish Barack for his next week. We need everybody on board, so shuttt uppp!"

Thank you. I agree.

Meet the Press is finally on out here, so I'll go watch this infamous interview, and see for myself whether Tim Russert in fact baited Hillary this morning into burning a cross on the set.

Aloha.

Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 12:47 AM:

Based on your definition, it seems pretty clear that Duane is a troll.

Feel free to ignore me then. I've been doing that to you. :)

southpaw wrote on January 14, 2008 1:27 AM:

stivo-

If you are still reading this thread...

RE: LBJ and the Civil Rights Act of 1957-

Its too much of a simplification to blame the weaknesses of the '57 Act on Johnson's presidential aspiriations. In a nutshell, the Bill was stripped of many provisions by Southern Senators in committee. Johnson correctly saw that since the Bill was introduced by a Republican president, there was a chance that they would gain the upper hand with the AA community and voters in general. Likewise, if he could find a way to satisfy the Northern liberals (passing some kind of Civil Rights bill) and the Southern Senators (making it a weak bill and having the jury trial amendent where only whites could sit on a jury)he could keep the Democratds united (for a time), increase his stature, and position the Dems for 1960.
What kind of "heroism" do you think would have worked in 1957 seeing as the Southern Senators had more influence in the Senate by way of committee leadership than they had interms of numbers? No bill had been passed in 82 years and the South would have jumped ship(and eventually did later). A strong bill was not in the cards. Perhaps LBJ taking left-wing stance may have set the movement back? He would've been stripped of his Majority Leader statue assisted by/given to him by Richard Russell. Johnson knew full well what the stakes were but both the liberal and the conservative extremes would've gotten nothing done.
Maybe an analogy might be the various compromises staving off the onset of the Civil War, only in this case, it was putting off the splitting of the Democratic Party between the liberal wing and the southern conservatives. Luckily, Johnson did what was best for the country-not the South-in 1964. And, 1957 helped make this happen.
If you are interested in this period, read Robert Caro's LBJ bio, "Master of the Senate".
I would say there was as crash of ego, practicality, political necessity, idealism, raw struggle for power, etc. Likely, Johnson was just moderate enough to satisfy both strong wings of the Party and actually we should thank Richard Russell for making LBJ the Majoity Leader. You think a liberal Majority Leader would have gotten any southerners on board with any kind of Civil Rights bill in the 1950s?

db wrote on January 14, 2008 3:58 AM:

Dear Donald from Hawaii:

For starters, my apologies for the delay in responding.

I appreciate your willingness to engage in the topic at hand, though I am deeply disappointed to see that you’ve decided to take the low road. Your latest post lacks respect and civility, adding to a record of name calling and invective.

While I have tried to apologize for expressing my concerns about you possibly being a troll, your last post clearly indicates a level of divisiveness I’ve never seen on this website.

ON THE CLINTON QUOTE

Though you’re a little late to the party with your defense of Sen. Clinton, I’m glad you finally decided to express your thoughts on the matter. Let’s

First you claim that I’m “not honestly addressing the entire context of what Mrs. Clinton originally said.” So not true. In fact, you entirely ignore several posts I had exploring the context of the quote.

There are a couple of different issues of context here. First, the specific context of the quote and whether the truncation changes the meaning.

As I already mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve read the transcript and watched the video. The additional sentence (in contrast to the original Politico story and the NYT), “That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished" actually makes it much worse for Sen. Clinton, and it contradicts the Donald’s defense of her position. It clearly puts the focus of the quote on dreams vs. reality (MLK vs. LBJ), not LJB vs. JFK.

If what it takes is a president to make dreams come true, wouldn’t you want a president that actually speaks to your dreams instead of dissing them as “false hopes.” Even if you give her the benefit of the doubt on meaning, it’s an embarrassing misunderstanding of the history of the era, the role of the civil rights movement and how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 got passed. No parsing of her words can justify letting her off the hook for that monumental blunder.

There’s a great comment over on Ben’s Blog worth reading.

Imagine this comment: "I would point to the fact that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony's dream began to be realized when President Wilson pushed passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, when he was able to get through Congress something others were hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished." Well, thank goodness there was a white MAN around to give women a vote. Just like it was a white man that gave poor blacks their civil rights.

Then there’s the issue of the context of the campaign:

Let’s not forget that concern about these comments comes amidst these hits,
1) The Fairy Tale
2) The False hope
3) The Shuck and Jive
4) The Drug dealer
5) The Secular Madrassa, and of course
6) The Hip Black Friend

The only intellectual dishonesty comes from from you completely ignoring that context.

The only one’s inflicting damage on the party as a whole are those who fail to recognize the impact of downplaying these terrible statements. That’s the only real Rovian pornography here. How can you possibly justify all of those comments coming from one campaign. I’m amazed the Obama campaign has remained so calm about all of this, to their credit.

Now let’s go to your LBJ analogy (which frankly is different than the one given by Sen. Clinton). Your analogy displays the narrowness of your thinking. It wasn’t a symbiotic relationship. MLK didn’t need LBJ – the moral authority was on the side of the civil rights movement. LBJ grabbed on to the coattails of the civil rights movement, not the other way around. To assume that it couldn’t have gotten passed any other way again undermines the power and importance of the civil rights movement to the American story.

Additionally, I suggest you go back and read Taylor Branch’s trilogy on America in the King years. He’s a preeminent civil rights historian and he clearly disagrees with your assessment.

This is the core of the difference between the Obama and the Clinton campaigns. You and the Clinton camp holding to the position that change happens from the top down, while the Obama campaign believes change comes from the people. It’s the difference between a life-long politician and someone with experience in community organizing.
There’s no “purposeful attempt to take these things out of context” as you assert. Folks on this discussion board, including myself, have gone out of their way to give Sen. Clinton the benefit of the doubt. Her comments today, however, only re-enforced the problematic nature of these comments. Clearly, Donald, I’m not the only one concerned about this issue.

Such nonsense about “purposeful attempts” is indicative of your intellectual dishonesty. You refuse to open your eyes and see why lots of folks, particularly in the black community, might be pissed at these comments. Why is it so hard to admit that these statements were problematic, apologize and move on?

ON SHELBY STEELE

Firstly, you didn’t just make reference to his book “in passing.” Now you’re being quite intellectually dishonest. Just look back at that post. You were clearly using the references to change the subject to make the Obama Unelectable argument. Please tell me how parroting conservative talking points about Sen. Obama’s electability isn’t a Karl Rove wet dream?

Secondly, with a defense of Steele like that, you make me question if you’ve actually read his work. As someone who’s actually read Steele’s work, I also noted that his career has centered around attempting to position conservatives as the true saviors of African-Americans. I noted that his body of work has calculatedly been trying to drive a wedge between white progressives and African Americans for years. It’s part of larger conservative efforts to divide and conquer. Steele’s arguments have little resonance in the black community and we certainly don’t need a recitation of his nonsense here. Steele also opposes measures such as affirmative action, which he considers to be unsuccessful liberal campaigns to promote equal opportunity for African Americans. He has minuscule (if any) support in the black community. Rather than reply to those important concerns, you simply try to lift him up again.

Thirdly, I never claimed that Mr. Steele was “dishonest” and it is intellectually dishonest of you to even imply such a thing. What I did was inform readers about the political perspective of Mr. Steele (something you failed to do). I factually pointed out that Steele is a self-described "Black conservative." He's employed by the conservative Hoover Institution, and holds the political positions outlined above. I also asked if you thought that’s the expertise that's supposed to absolve Sen. Clinton of responsibility for these statements? Again, no response.

Fourthly, You’ve yet to explain what Mr. Steele has to do with Sen. Clinton’s comments. From what I can see, zero.

Fifthly, your contention that Sen. Obama is unelectable because Steele says so is fundamentally anti-democratic. Why even bother to vote, right? Mr. Steele said Obama isn’t electable therefore it must be true. I, on the other hand, firmly believe in the American people and believe they can make the right decision if presented real alternatives.

Lastly, I find it funny how those doing the name-calling so often backpedal pleas for civility after their ad hominem bombs fail to deter their opponents. Seems as though you can dish it out, but can’t take it. I’d encourage you to take a deep breath and re-examine how you engage the American people on this issue. You can try and attack my party loyalty, you can try and attack my character, you can try and attack my American-ness, but it doesn’t make Sen. Clinton’s statements any less objectionable.

Peace!

4civilrights wrote on January 14, 2008 4:20 AM:

nicely done, db! talk about a smack-down.

deeply concerned wrote on January 14, 2008 4:27 AM:

db - I LOVE that list of the Clinton's greatest hits. It makes me laugh and cry at the same time.

I Laughed because it sounds like one of those late-night informericals (how much would you pay??? ....but wait, there's more!) and cry because the Clinton people keep saying all those horrible things.

Now you can add these to your list:
7) The Voter Suppression. And who could forget,
8) Doin' something in the neighborhood.

I'm very sad all of a sudden.
Night!
Amanda

4civilrights wrote on January 14, 2008 4:31 AM:

OH!!! Good ones. Don't forget..

9) Secret Muslim Man (sung to the tune of Secret Agent Man)

4civilrights wrote on January 14, 2008 4:42 AM:

drat, I forgot one more... Another Bill Clinton special

10) The Hillary has more courage than Nelson Mandela.

Desider wrote on January 14, 2008 4:44 AM:

MLK was a preacher, not a politician. He inspired people to take challenges, to resist, to take their destiny in their own hands. But he wasn't versed in the ugly backroom politicking of Washington. I wouldn't vote for Jesus for President - he couldn't get anything done.

LBJ got stuck with Civil Rights by the Kennedy Administration, and he ran with it. I don't think it was so much that the street movements drove him to it, but this was his bit of turf, and like any turf he ever had, he expanded it. I'm sure there were some sincere beliefs mixed with cynical political beliefs. That's LBJ, the expert in getting cemetaries out to vote. But if you need a cemetary to vote for your cause, or a back-room deal, he was the man to go to.

Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 6:42 AM:

Did you have a point Desider? Last time I checked my calendar, MLK had the holiday.

Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 6:43 AM:

.. and Jesus too, for that matter.

raincntry wrote on January 14, 2008 7:05 AM:

Don't any democrats actually remember the Clinton years? They were/are serial liars. HRC supporters quickly tout the peace and prosperity during Bill's reign but I seem to remember getting involved in Kosovo (too late) and Somalia (too little) and hundreds of thousands of people being slaughtered in Rwanda whose screams fell on deaf ears. I recall NAFTA, GATT and absolutely HUGE tax cuts for the wealthiest people. Sure the economy boomed but that rising tide sure didn't lift all boats, not to mention the great job they did in getting health care for everyone.

Those eight years were not the shangri la people think. They were light years better than what W has done and I guess are viewed as better in contrast.

Don't get me wrong, I voted for Bill twice, but I have no desire to vote for his wife. I think their style of politics, their appeal to the mega-rich, their overall slime, is not what this country needs. We need to believe we are that shining city on the hill again. HRC simply does make me feel like we can be the great country we strive to be.

Obama does.

Alan wrote on January 14, 2008 7:09 AM:

Greg: You will never convinnce some about the need for accurate reporting. Poetry did his best to explain. The Dems lost the Southern white votes because of the CRB. Ask Trent Lott and Robert Byrd: they're still around. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms come to mind. So Johnson, who was never enthusiatic about the CRB during the Kennedy presidency changed his mind and got the bill passed.

Now we can attack Hillary and we can crown Obama depending on our predeliction - after all this is politics. We use what is best for our candidate. This is a first: a Black and a woman on the ticket: so lets make sure that their case for election is not distorted by journalists pursuing their own agenda. Say what you want Obama has got a relatively free ride so far. But he can hold his own. He does not need supporters who twist everything into "this is racism".

Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 7:35 AM:

He does not need supporters who twist everything into "this is racism".

In point of fact, an Obama campaign spokesperson made the following statement about the Clinton campaign's continual "slips":

“There’s a groundswell of reaction to these comments — and not just these latest comments but really a pattern, or a series of comments that we’ve heard for several months,” she said. “Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation or is there something bigger behind all of this?”

The Clintons can easily put a stop to this by instructing their surrogates to stop discussing Obama and instead focus on her own campaign. Based on Bob Johnson's latest unfortunate remarks, that doesn't appear to be happening.

Liam wrote on January 14, 2008 9:04 AM:

At the time that Dr. King was putting his life on the line to obtain equal rights for all, Hillary was a Goldwater Girl, and was supporting Barry Goldwater while he was campaigning against the civil rights bill that ended segregation.

Since she clearly supported Goldwater, that means that she opposed what MLK stood for, so no wonder she still holds him in such low regard. Once a Goldwater Segregationist, Always a Goldwater Segregationist. Hillary, still a Goldwater Girl at heart. You go Goldwater Girl. You can fool some of the people all the time.

Nickal wrote on January 14, 2008 10:21 AM:

Liam's comment above is a perfect example of the mental gymnastics that the Obama camp is will to undertake to make a racial mountain out of a mole hill. Many people have changed since 1964, Liam. Look at Clinton's record before and since 1964. There is nothing in it that would suggest Clinton is a racist or would harbor racst tendencies. If Obama is going to see racial sleights in every utterance, this is going to be a long and ugly journey to the White House. I mean House. Obama and his minions are desperatly trying to keep this charade alive because it means he doesn't have to talk about specifics nor does he have to defend his dismal record of accomplishing nothing while in his short time in office. This "I am a victim" crap that O's supporters keep trotting out and is tiresome, loathesome, and hardly befitting of someone with O's aspirations. I cannot help but think that Dr. King would be embarrassed for an African American politician exhibitting such an attitude.

Nickal wrote on January 14, 2008 10:25 AM:

Liam is an idiot. Clinton spoke out against Sistah Soljah because of her lyrics saying that it was O.K. to kill cops. I don't care what ethnic identity one claims, killing cops or anyone else is just wrong. Any politician would be a fool not to disagree with such sentiment.

southpaw wrote on January 14, 2008 11:46 AM:

Liam-

FWIW, my defense of HRC here has nothing to do with this election, the Clinton years, etc....

To insinuate that she is still or ever was a segregationist because she was a "Goldwater Girl" 44 years ago and that she is incapable of changing her political beliefs is like saying you still believe in Santa Claus.

Unless you still do...

Jon wrote on January 14, 2008 3:56 PM:

Hello,
We are the Democratic party...no need to run a candidate against us, we'll implode on our own.

Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 4:37 PM:

Liam-

FWIW, my defense of HRC here has nothing to do with this election, the Clinton years, etc....

To insinuate that she is still or ever was a segregationist because she was a "Goldwater Girl" 44 years ago and that she is incapable of changing her political beliefs is like saying you still believe in Santa Claus.

Unless you still do...

Southpaw, an easy case can be built that Hillary makes a better Republican than Democrat, from her days as a Goldwater supporter through her co-founding the DLC with Bill, through their presidency where they failed to deliver anything of substance for Democrats, enacted NAFTA, turned the Congress over to Republicans beginning in '94 and spent the next six years signing all kinds of bad Republican bills into law, including DOMA.

That all by itself would be quite enough but when she got to the Senate, she went along with Republicans in the foolish rush to war, refusing to work with Democrats like Levin who were trying desperately trying to interject accountability into the process. We see how that ended.. oops, didn't end yet.

If all that isn't enough of a searing indictment, she supported and voted for the Bankruptcy law that a real Democrat, Chris Dodd, called a disaster for working families.

I don't know how anyone can come to a conclusion that she is anything other than a Democrat In Name Only.

spencer wrote on January 14, 2008 5:51 PM:

Let's remember the original quote that made Sistah Souljah so controversial: "If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?"

frankly0 -

Funny thing about that is that the sentence you quote was absolutely taken out of context. Read the entire interview she gave; you'll see that she did not actually advocate killing white people for a week.

Yeah, "it was taken out of context" is an old and often feeble dodge sometimes. But the fact is that context matters.

Julie wrote on January 14, 2008 8:05 PM:

Even considered in the larger context, the message bothers me, in that there seems to be a covert message that MLK and his movement couldn't get it done effectively without a power broker in the presidency. Think about that covert message: You, a black person, cannot get anything done effectively without that power broker, and I AM THE ONLY ONE who can do it effectively FOR YOU. One thing that bothers me about that message is that it falsely elevates the power of the presidency. The truth is that the president can't get it done witout Congress, so it isn't something done by the president all by him/herself. The second thing that bothers me about that kind of statement, typical of the kind Hillary favors, is that it's always about her, what she can do for us, how she can be our heroine. This ignores the fact that back during her husband's administration, she failed to get any traction on a healthcare plan, mainly because she couldn't galvanize a movement by the public in support of the hodgepodge plan, therefore had little backing in Congress. But it's always thius covert message taht we are weak without her, it's all about her. And I do think she believes that. It seems without question that a certain amount of narcissism is necessary to run for president in the first place, but Hillary has an inordinate amount of narcissism, and that's what these kinds of messages are about, because that's how she thinks.

Even the tearing up incident was because it was a question about her. You didn't see her tearing up about Katrina, or about the loss of our military people in Iraq. But she can tear up when it's about herself. She saw the Iowa caucus vote as a rejection of her (and it was), and it stunned her.

This is one reason that I like Edwards' rhetoric: He talks about how WE can do it together. It isn't about how he is going to do it for us, but how we can do it together. And that's what it's going to take if there is to be any real change, because Congress certainly has shown that it is not going to change by itself.

southpaw wrote on January 14, 2008 11:32 PM:

Duane-

Yeah, the Clintons are not liberals to my way of thinking but, hell, I drove around with a homemade "Feingold '08" sign on my car...

Liam wrote on January 15, 2008 9:06 AM:

MLK choose to fight and die for freedom. LBJ did not. He was a some what accidental President, who would never have been elected to the office if JFK had not been murdered. LBJ knew that he had to do something dramatic to have a chance to win a term of his own. Look what he did with his own term; he created the mess in Vietnam. This is the guy that Hillary is elevating to the rank of top civil rights pioneer. The two million or more Vietnamese who died in Johnson's vanity war prove that LBJ did not give a rat's arse about human rights.

Hillary voted for Bush's Iraq invasion, and recently voted for the Kyl/Lieberman Iran war ploy. No wonder she touts LBJ over the Anti-War MLK

Greg Jones wrote on January 15, 2008 4:48 PM:

NEWS FLASH ! (SPREAD THE WORD)
Hillary Was AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964
While a Republican and "Goldwater Girl"

A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement.

In an attempt to attract black support Hillary Clinton regularly shares her 'civil rights experience' during every speech given to black audiences. Novak writes of one such speech at Selma's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march there, where Sen. Clinton declared: "As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963.

The fact is, in 1963, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamently against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes "...how then could she be a 'Goldwater Girl' in the next year's presidential election?" He continues, "...she described herself in her memoirs as 'an active Young Republican' and 'a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.'

Novak adds, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the histo ric voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. Hillary headed the Young Republicans at Wellesley College. The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me (Novak) by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton's temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy."

To Read Novak's original article simply Google ' Hillary, King, Goldwater '. His article is everywhere. Then SHARE THE TRUTH. We've had a liar in office long enough. NO MORE !!!!!

Greg Jones wrote on January 17, 2008 12:25 AM:

NEWS FLASH: Blacks Learning
'Goldwater Girl' Hillary Was AGAINST
the Civil Rights Act of 1964....Feel Deceived !

A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement. Clinton recently was found to have minimized the great and monumental strides taken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by stating that it was Lyndon B. Johnson, then president, who should receive the credit for civil rights progress including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In an attempt to attract black support Hillary Clinton regularly shares her 'civil rights experience' during every speech given to blacks audiences. Novak writes of one such speech at Selma's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march there, where Sen. Clinton declared: "As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union." But Novak's article states that there's a big problem with her statement.

The fact is, in 1963, the same period of time she speeks of at all black church appearances, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamently against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes "...how then could she be a 'Goldwater Girl' in the next year's presidential election?" He continues, "...she described herself in her memoirs as 'an active Young Republican' and 'a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.' (Hillary worked on Golwater's presidential campaign)
Novak adds, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. Hillary headed the Young Republicans at Wellesley College.

The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me (Novak) by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton's temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy." Novak adds, "What Hillary Clinton said at Selma is significant because it betrays her campaign's panicky reaction to the unexpected rise of Sen. Obama as a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination.
Clinton's plans were transformed by the advent of Obama, an African-American threatening the hard allegiance of black voters forged by Bill Clinton. On one hand, the Clinton campaign has attacked Obama and his supporters. On the other hand, she has sought to solidify her civil rights credentials.

While Clinton was re-inventing her past, her road to the White House is not going as planned. Instead of a steady procession to coronation at the Denver convention, she is involved in a real struggle against credible opponents led by Obama. No wonder she and her handlers were tempted to imply the existence long ago of a young lady in Chicago's suburbs who never really existed."

Blacks are stating their feeling of betrayment now that these truths are being exposed as they come to the conclusion that the fact is, Hillary was AGAINST the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Dr. King died for and as a 'Goldwater Girl' she was even against Lyndon B. Johnson, the very person she now gives the credit to for Dr. King getting to the mountaintop. !

Greg 'Peace Song' Jones

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)